typical issues related warrant issuance pc cp 5-10 typical... · 2012. 5. 10. · probable cause to...

1Typical Issues Related to Warrant Issuance ‐ PC in CP cases

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________


Probable cause is a “practical, nontechnical, conception” that deals with “ ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable men, not legal technicians, act.’ ”

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370 (2003) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231 (1983) (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 388 U.S. 160, 175‐176 (1949.))

When considering issues of probable cause, we deal with probabilities.g p , p

Gates at 231

PC is a fluid concept. Magistrate must assess the probabilities in each factual context.

Gates at 232.

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________


Finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of evidence, has no place in the decision as to whether there is probable cause.

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. at 371 (citing Gates at 235.)

PC standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into exact percentages, because it deals with probabilities and depends on totality of the circumstances.

Maryland v Pringle 540 U S 366 371 (2003)Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003).

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________


Affidavits are usually drafted by nonlawyers in the midst of a criminal investigation; many warrants are (properly) issued on the basis of common sense judgment of laymen applying a standard less demanding than those used in more formal legal proceedings.

Gates, 462 U.S. at 235‐36.

The Fourth Amendment has a strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to warrants, therefore reviewing courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hypertechnical manner.

Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (citing United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 (1965).

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

Typical Issues Related to Warrant Issuance ‐ PC in CP casesPriscilla Grantham, May 20‐21, 2010Copyright © 2010 National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law

Probable Cause to search a home exists so long as the underlying affidavit contains information showing a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found there.

U.S. v. Grant, 218 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2000).

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________


Information in Affidavit

• Images depict “sexually explicit conduct”

Described in detail and / or attached

• And/or depictions “lascivious exhibitions”

Six factors, plus others appropriate to caseUnited States v Dost 636 F Supp 828 (S D Cal 1986)United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986)

Minority view – Presumption

United States v. Hill, 322 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (C.D. Cal. 2004)

• Real children depicted

Affiant’s statement that image appears to depict real child sufficient

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


What is Lascivious Exhibition?

Test: 6 non‐exclusive factors:

• focal point ? – genitals or pubic area• Setting sexually suggestive?• Child in unnatural pose or suggestive clothing?• Child fully clothed, partially clothed, or nude?• Picture suggests coyness or willingness to engage in sexual activity?• Image intended to illicit sexual response in viewer?

United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp 828 (S.D. Cal. 1996).

Nudity not required

United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3rd Cir. 1994)

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Typical Issues Related to Warrant Issuance ‐ PC in CP cases 11

Affidavit stated that images depicted “a prepubescent boy lasciviously displaying his genitals.”

Court found that this bare legal assertion, without any descriptive support and without an independent review of the images was insufficient to sustain magistrates finding of probable cause.

D h bi f h l i i di il i j dDue to the ambiguous nature of the term lascivious, ordinarily, a magistrate judge must view an image to determine if it depicts the lascivious exhibition of a child’s genitals. At the very least the magistrate should make an assessment based on a reasonably detailed description.

United States v. Brunette, 256 F.3d 14, 19 (1at Cir. 2001).

Either attach the image or provide a detailed description in order to provide probable cause that image is child pornography.


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Nexus Btwn PC of Guilt and PC to Search Home

The affidavit must set forth a sufficient nexus between the suspected illegal activity and the place toThe affidavit must set forth a sufficient nexus between the suspected illegal activity and the place to be searched.

The magistrate must make a common‐sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2009).

i d S 22 3d 6 8United States v. Terry, 522 F.3d at 648.

Mere fact that a person is suspected of a crime does not justify the conclusion that fruits of that crime will be found at his residence.

Lapsins, 570 F.3d at 766 (citing United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 524‐25 (6th Cir. 2006)( )

Crimes relating to the possession and transportation of child pornography is much more tied to a place of privacy, seclusion, and Internet connectivity (such as a home or an office) than the crime of possession of narcotics; drugs can be stored “in a car, in a ditch, in a hole in the ground, etc.”

Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 at 766 (quoting United States v. Wagers, 452 F.3d 534, 540 (6th Cir 2006)(6th Cir. 2006).

Typical Issues Related to Warrant Issuance ‐ PC in CP cases

United States v. Terry, 522 F.3d 645, 648 (6th Cir. 2008).

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Screen Names cont.

While there may be other possibilities, I.e. a hacker could be using defendants account and screen name, but probable cause does not require “near certainty,” only a “fair probability.”

Terry, 522 F.3d 648‐49 (citing United States v. Martin, 289 F.3d 392, 400 (6th Cir. 2002) (“Although innocent explanations for some or all of these facts may exist, this possibility does not render the determination of probable cause invalid ”)the…determination of probable cause invalid.”)

Reviewing court found that district court did not err in finding that as a matter of common sense, if a pornographic image originated or emanated from an individual’s email account, it is logical to believe the image will likely be found on that person’s computer or storage media associated with the computer.

Terry 522 F 3d at 648Terry, 522 F.3d at 648.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


“#w0nderland” was an Internet chat channel devoted to distribution of cp. Membership required (1) possession of 10,000 images of pre‐teen children engaging in explicit sexual conduct, and (2) images must be stored on a server that enabled other members to have access via “FTP” (File Transfer Protocol.)

Investigation into “#w0nderland,”, revealed screen names of 197 users in 18 countries, including “sassybabe.”

Information identifying account associated with “sassybabe” screen name revealed the user connected to Internet via the ISP IBM Global Network Services. IBM records showed that “sassybabe” screen name was registered to Grant.

Affidavit in support of search warrant need not prove it was defendant, not an imposter, who was using his IBM account to traffic in child pornography. While possible that one other than the account’s registrant might access the account illicitly, there was a fair probability that Grant was the user and evidence of child pornography would be found in his home.

U.S. v. Grant, 218 F.3d 72, 75 (1st Cir. 2000).


1st Circuit rejected argument that evidence of a screen name’s activity is, in all cases, per se insufficient to establish probable cause with respect to the registrant.

Grant, 218 F.3d at 75.

In Internet child pornography cases, warrants to search an individual’s residence often issue based solely on the activities of the defendant’s registered screen name.

Grant 218 F 3d at 75 n 2 (citing United States v Tank 200 F 3d 627Grant, 218 F.3d at 75, n.2 (citing United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 629‐30 (9th Cir. 2000), United States v. Fabiano, 169 F.3d 1299, 1302 (10th Cir. 1999), United States v. Hibbler, 159 F.3d 233, 234 (6th Cir. 1998).

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Affidavit established that defendant paid $94.95 “for the privilege of downloading child pornography, and having paid that fee it is fairly probably that he availed himself of the download opportunity.” No images were actually intercepted.

United States v. Costello, 596 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1066 (E.D. Mich. 2009).

Finding of probable cause to search defendant’s home affirmed Defendant purchasedFinding of probable cause to search defendant’s home affirmed. Defendant purchased subscription giving him access to child pornography website, although the credit card used gave the address of defendant’s office, not home.

United States v. Wagers, 452 F.3d 534, 539 (6th Cir. 2006).

Evidence that an individual subscribed to child pornography websites supports the conclusion that he has likely downloaded, kept, and otherwise possessed the material.

United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 77 (2nd Cir. 2005).


Website Membership

Agent’s affidavit detailing defendant’s membership in an Internet group whose goal was to collect and distribute child pornography supported a finding of probable cause for issuance of search warrant for defendant’s home.

Purpose of Egroup as stated on its website: “This group is for people who love kids You canPurpose of Egroup as stated on its website: “This group is for people who love kids. You can post any type of messages you like too [sic] or any types of pics and vids you like too [sic]. P.S. IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER WE WILL HAVE THE BEST GROUP ON THE NET.

United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882, 890 (5th Cir. 2004).

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Website Membership

Affidavit in support of warrant to search home and computer of a subscriber of two e‐groups principally devoted to sharing child pornography was sufficient to supply probable cause:

Defendant used screen name “LittleLolita Love.”

As a member of e‐groups, D. had access to downloadable images of cp for over a month until Yahoo shut down the groups.

Court rejected defendant’s argument that probable cause was lacking because FBI could have determined whether defendant downloaded cp images but failed to do so. An affidavit may support probable cause even if the govt does not obtain potentially dispositive information, so long as the information satisfies the “fair probability” standard.

United States v. Shields, 458 F.3d 269 (3rd Cir. 2006).


Website membership

While investigating Lolitagurls.com website, FBI received subscriber records indicating defendant Gourde was a member. Information contained his home address, email address, DOB, and duration of membership (two months until site was shut down by FBI.)

As a member, defendant had unlimited access to website and was allowed to download images directly from website.

Site contained adult and child pornography.

First page of site contained images of nude and partially nude girls, some prepubescent girls and the text:

Lolitagurls.com offers hard to find pics! With weekly updates and high quality pix inside, you can’t go wrong if you like young girls!

Second page contained testimonials from members, i.e. “I’ve never seen in my life the pics of so cute pre‐teen girls,” “this lolita site has everything with young girls.” Also contained images of nude girls (some prepubescent) with the caption, “Lolitas age 12‐17” and the following text:

Welcome to Lolitagurls. Over one thousand pictures of girls age 12‐17.


Typical Issues Related to Warrant Issuance ‐ PC in CP cases 24

Website Membership as PC

United States v. Payne, 519 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D. N.J. 2007)

Affidavit contained following information:

•Defendant used his credit card to pay $79.99 for a 20 day subscription to a website called “Illegal.CP.”

•Email sent from site admin to a third party who verified information submitted by potential subscribers containing

•(1) Defendant’s name

•(2) home address in Hoboken N.J.,

•(3) email address [email protected]

•(4) credit card number( )

•Selected login and password “lostsoul20” and “14lost”

•IP address from which the information was submitted

•Second email sent to [email protected] from site admin informing defendant that charge had been made to his credit card and providing 3 links to the website.

•ICE agents corroborated Defendant’s address via information from credit card company, ISP, etc.,

Payne, 519 F. Supp 2d at 471‐73.


• Affidavit did not demonstrate that Defendant actually accessed or downloaded images from Illegal.CP site.

• Affidavit described Illegal.CP banner page as containing approx. a dozen images of minors engaging in sexual acts and including the language, “[n]ow you are in [sic] few minutes away from the best children porn site on the net!”

• (wholly illegal content.)(wholly illegal content.)

• Court found that the details of the investigation as recounted in affidavit, established that Defendant subscribed to Illegal.CP site, and it “neither strains logic nor defies common sense” to conclude that one who pays $79.99 for a subscription to

a child pornography website has done so with the intent to view and download its contentcontent.

United States v. Payne, 519 F. Supp. 2d 466, 469,471, 473‐74 (D. N.J. 2007).

B tBut…


Mere membership – no PC

Other courts have been unwilling to find the existence of probable cause based on membership in a group whose predominant purpose is the exchange of child pornography.

United States v. Kunen, 323 F. Supp. 2d 390, 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).

Additional Information Beyond Membership

• Focus of site clearly on child pornography

• Evidence of actual downloading of cp

• Automatic transmission of cp images as part of membership

• Use of suggestive screen names / email addresses.


Website membership – No PC

Court stated the affidavit did not establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant:

• Statements in the affidavit were inconclusive as to whether Defendant even accessed child pornography website;

• No details about the features and nature of the website;

• Affidavit contained no facts to support the inference that all people who are attracted to children collect child pornography.

United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 120‐22 (2nd Cir. 2008.)United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 120 22 (2 Cir. 2008.)

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


• Issuing Judge must be supplied with sufficient information to support independent judgment that probable cause exists.

• The more information put in the statement of probable cause, the more likely the warrant will be issued and the motion to suppress denied.

• Probable cause assessments are to be made from all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit.

United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.

• All information necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of a written affidavit given under oath.

United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d at 1067.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


IP Addresses

• ISPs assign a IP address to every computer each time it accesses the Internet. An ISP will have a block of addresses which it can assign –

• Fixed IP addresses are assigned to only one computer;

• Static IP addresses – your home computer may be assigned a different IP address if it access the Internet several times during the day.g y

• It might be possible to show that an IP address assigned to a defendant was used to purchase a subscription to a CP website, or that images of cp were located on a computer with a specific IP address, and that these images were made available through a P2P program.

• While IP such information can contribute to the totality of the probable cause determination, it is not an indispensable prerequisite for obtaining a search warrant., p p q g

United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Terry, 522 F.3d at 649.


IP Addresses (cont.)

• Defendant argued that agent impermissibly omitted information re: IP spoofing and Internet hacking which would have alerted judge to the possibility that, despite IP address connection, the files may not have originated from Defendant’s computer.

• Affiant is not required to provide information about every possible theory, no matter how implausible, that would controvert the affiant’s good‐faith belief that probable cause existed.

United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


. Hash Values, P2P, etc.

Every digital image or file has a hash value – a unique set of 32 numbers and letters calculated using a mathematical algorithm. It is, in effect, the unique “fingerprint” of the digital image or file.

P2P networks facilitate the sharing of information among computers. Once a computer user downloads readily available (and often free) software he can share and obtain anyuser downloads readily available (and often free) software, he can share and obtain any type of file from any other computer that is part of the P2P network.

The hash values of all known images of cp are logged by law enforcement.

During investigation of P2P network, agents can track which IP addresses download digital images known to be child pornography based on their hash values The agent may then be

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

images known to be child pornography based on their hash values. The agent may then be able to link the IP address to a particular user.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Characteristics of Collectors:

United States v. Wilder, 526 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2008).

United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374, 379 (6th Cir. 2009).

Affidavit contained information about Defendants public indecency arrest. At time of arrest, Defendant was in his car and was in possession of a laminated image of CP which had been modified on a computer.

Based on the image of CP and the characteristics of collectors which were recited in the warrant, the court found the evidence as a whole provided a substantial basis for finding probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant.

United States v. McArthur, 473 F. 3d 608, 613‐14 (Eighth Cir. 2009).

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


Because crimes involving CP are generally carried out in the secrecy of the home and over aBecause crimes involving CP are generally carried out in the secrecy of the home and over a long period, the same time limitations applied to more fleeting crimes do not control the staleness inquiry for child pornography.

United States v. Paul, 551 F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir. 2009).

This approach is generally followed by other circuits.

United States v. Martin, 418 F.3d 148, 157 (2nd Cir. 2005)United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882,890‐91 (5th Cir. 2004)United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1997)United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008)

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


“The observation that images of child pornography are likely to be hoarded by persons interested in those materials in the privacy of their homes is supported by common sense and the cases. Since the materials are illegal to distribute and

i iti l ll ti i diffi lt H i d d i bt i i i ll t lik l t d t th B fpossess, initial collection is difficult. Having succeeded in obtaining images, collectors are unlikely to destroy them. Because of their illegality and the imprimature of severe social stigma such images carry, collectors will want to secret them in secure places, like a private residence. This proposition is not novel in either state or federal court: pedophiles, preferential child molesters, and child

pornography collectors maintain their materials for significant periods of time.”

United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 860 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Lamb, 945 F. Supp. 441, 460 (N.D.N.Y. 1996)).

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


typical issues related warrant issuance pc cp 5-10 typical... · 2012. 5. 10. · probable cause to...

Documents