How have recent court rulings (post-2020) treated browser cache or transient files as possession?
Executive summary
Post-2020 federal and state rulings have not settled the question of whether browser cache or other transient files constitute “possession”; instead courts continue a preexisting split where some decisions treat cached files as sufficient evidence of possession while others require additional proof of knowledge, dominion, or intentional control [1] [2]. Recent legal commentary and related Supreme Court privacy decisions suggest shifting doctrinal currents—Carpenter-era privacy reasoning and limitations on computer-crime statutes may shape future rulings even if direct, landmark cache-possession opinions remain sparse after 2020 [3] [4].
1. The doctrinal fault lines: possession versus mere evidence
Judges approach cached files through two competing conceptual frames: one treats cached or temporary internet files as either direct possession or strong evidence of prior possession, while the other treats caches as merely forensic traces that require proof the defendant knew of and controlled those files; scholarship and case collections document both lines of authority [1] [2]. Courts that have accepted cache files as possession stress that files stored on a device are accessible and deletable—functional indicia of control—so caches can prove knowing possession in cases like child-porn prosecutions [5] [1]. By contrast, courts in the Ninth and Eighth Circuits and some state high courts have pushed back: the Ninth has refused to equate cache residency with knowing possession absent proof of awareness and control, and the Eighth Circuit has also warned against treating automatic browser caching as criminal possession by itself [6] [7].
2. Post-2020 caselaw: more continuity than revolution
There is little evidence in the provided reporting of new, watershed appellate decisions after 2020 that uniformly resolve the question; instead, commentators and defense blogs in 2024–2025 describe continuing circuit splits and the survival of older precedents that limit liability where knowledge and dominion are lacking [6] [2]. Legal practitioners emphasize that federal statutes still require “knowing” possession, and modern forensic practice and Federal Rules of Evidence impose authentication and relevance hurdles before transient files can convict—so prosecutors often need corroborating evidence beyond cache artifacts [6] [8]. Scholarly surveys dating back before 2020 likewise find inconsistent outcomes, and the literature notes that several courts historically found cached images sufficient while others did not, a pattern that persists into the present reporting [1] [2].
3. Broader digital-law decisions altering the landscape
Two doctrinal shifts outside pure cache-possession jurisprudence could influence future rulings: the Supreme Court’s post-2018 privacy reasoning in Carpenter has been pressed into service to argue for greater expectations of privacy in granular digital traces like browsing history, and Van Buren narrowed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act’s reach—together these moves change the statutory and constitutional backdrop against which possession questions will be decided [3] [4]. Neither Carpenter nor Van Buren directly addresses browser cache as criminal “possession,” but commentators argue Carpenter’s emphasis on comprehensive, involuntary data collection and Van Buren’s limits on criminalizing authorized access will shape courts’ willingness to treat ephemeral forensic artifacts as standalone crimes [3] [4].
4. Practical and policy tensions in prosecution and defense
Prosecutors view cache files as evidentiary shortcuts that can demonstrate access or receipt; defense lawyers and some courts warn that automatic caching technology can transform innocent viewing into apparent “possession” without true knowledge, resulting in unjust convictions unless courts require proof of dominion or affirmative control [1] [2]. Forensic authentication, chain-of-custody, and Federal Rules of Evidence concerns mean transient files must be contextualized—courts routinely exclude or limit digital evidence under relevance, authentication, or prejudice grounds if probative value is weak [8]. These practical pressures create incentives for plea bargaining in contested cases and for incremental judicial decisions rather than sweeping doctrinal shifts [6] [8].
5. Where the reporting leaves gaps and what to watch
The provided sources document the split, note some older pivotal decisions, and highlight related doctrinal trends, but they do not point to a single, definitive post-2020 appellate ruling that resolves the cache-possession question nationwide; future appellate work applying Carpenter-style privacy reasoning or clarifying “knowing” possession in light of modern browsers would decisively change the landscape if it appears [1] [3] [6]. Observers should therefore follow circuit-level rulings that explicitly reconcile knowledge/dominion standards with transient-file forensics, and monitor how courts treat authentication and prejudice under the Federal Rules when using cache files as proof [8] [2].