D.N.H.: Pattern of sexual abuse allegations support SW for house for photographic evidence of it

Defense counsel essentially concedes that there is probable cause to believe that defendant might have committed sexual abuse offenses, but not that evidence would be found at his house because none of the prior acts buttressing the PC occurred there. The court finds that there still was PC for the house that there might be evidence there of sexual abuse of children, even several years later. United States v. Joubert, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27422 (D. N.H. March 4, 2014):

The court cannot agree. The basis for Joubert’s argument is the absence of any allegations in the affidavit that he “ever engaged in any sexual or other misconduct at 144 Fairmont Avenue or anywhere else in Manchester,” that he “recorded any sexual contact by or toward anyone,” including children, that he ever “viewed, possessed, or collected child pornography,” or that he “sexually assaulted or tried to sexually assault anyone anywhere after 2004.” Id. at 5. Yet there is little significance to these facts. As the court explained in its oral ruling, the absence of any allegations that any sexual abuse occurred at the Fairmont Avenue property is immaterial, because the relevant question is not whether crimes have taken place at the property to be searched, but whether evidence of a crime might be found there. See Hicks, 575 F.3d at 136. Similarly, the absence of allegations that Joubert had ever produced or viewed child pornography is immaterial, because—as the court also noted at oral argument—it was not evidence of the crime of producing or possessing child pornography that was sought, but evidence of the crime of felonious sexual assault, in the form of photographs, documents, or other evidence, that could corroborate or disprove the allegations that had been made against Joubert.