Motion to suppress; Search warrant challenges; Standing as to search warrants for someone else’s social media accounts; Legitimate expectation of privacy claim; Request for a Franks v Delaware hearing; Sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction of aiding & abetting a kidnapping; 18 USC §§ 2 & 1201(a); Admission of a photo of defendant with a rifle; Harmless error; Admission of an Instagram message identifying actions as a kidnapping; FRE 403; Jury instructions; Advance-knowledge aiding & abetting component

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendant-Lewis lacked standing to challenge the propriety of warrants authorizing searches of a codefendant’s (B) social media accounts because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in them. It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his aiding and abetting kidnapping conviction, and rejected his challenges to the admission of a photo and an Instagram message. Finally, it found that the district court’s aiding and abetting jury instruction “encompassed an advance-knowledge component.” The court concluded that B’s social media “accounts are tantamount to any other corporeal belonging.” As Lewis did not have a possessory or property interest in B’s “bedroom dresser or diary,” he likewise lacked “property or possessory interests in” his social media accounts. Lewis did not exhibit any “‘subjective expectation of privacy’ in [B’s] account” and no objective factors substantiated “the reasonableness of such an expectation.” Thus, he could not vicariously assert B’s “rights to suppress evidence obtained from searches of the account” pursuant to the state search warrants. The same logic applied to federal warrants for the Instagram accounts of B and four others, for Google accounts associated with three of those individuals, and another “federal warrant. Each of these warrants targeted other people’s social media or email accounts.” The court also determined that he could not “make the strong preliminary showing necessary for a Franks hearing.” It next held that there was sufficient evidence “to convince a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lewis took affirmative steps to further [victim-J’s] kidnapping with the intention to facilitate it.” The court found that a 22-second “video says nearly everything. It depicts Lewis, armed with a rifle, towering over [J] and later jabbing her with that rifle as two women assault her. This intimidation tactic, employed while others were violently beating [J], was aimed at furthering the gang’s attempt to pull information from” J about a “carjacking and her role in it. And Lewis’s actions were part and parcel of the broader aim of the kidnapping: to hold [J] against her will until they could find out who was responsible for the carjacking so” the gang could take revenge. Affirmed.