Traffic conviction collaterally estops challenge of stop in federal criminal case

Conviction on a traffic charge is collateral estoppel to the question of whether there was cause for the stop in a federal criminal prosecution arising from the stop. Also, the officer could put defendant in the patrol car, and this defendant had no standing in the pockets of his codefendant. United States v. Delano, 543 F. Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ohio 2008):

In this case, Defendant Delano was a party to the traffic ticket judgment, there is a final judgment on the merits of that ticket, the probable cause was decided, was necessary to the judgment, and it is identical to the question here. As such, the Court finds that Defendant Delano is collaterally estopped from claiming that Deputy Cleveland did not have probable cause to detain him for a traffic violation.

Eleven month old information in a child porn investigation is not stale. [This is generally true of all the cases.] United States v. McGan, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18307 (W.D. Ky. March 6, 2008)*:

The second factor in the analysis considers whether the alleged criminal is “nomadic” or “entrenched.” Id. In the present case, the affidavit states that internet service has been provided to the Defendant at the same address since March 14, 2001. According to his drivers license and the United States Postal Service, that address is the home address of the Defendant. Furthermore, child pornography crimes are typically “tied to a place of privacy, seclusion, and high-speed Internet connectivity.” Wagers, 452 F.3d at 540. It is clear that the Defendant in this case is not “nomadic,” suggesting the information was not stale.

The third factor addresses whether the nature of the alleged evidence is “perishable,” “easily transferable,” or “of enduring utility to its holder.” Abboud, 438 F.3d at 573. When staleness is viewed in context with child pornography, courts have recognized that people suspected of viewing or possessing child pornography commonly retain the illegal material. United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 861 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Irving, 432 F.3d 401, 416 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“images of child pornography are likely to be hoarded by persons interested in those materials in the privacy of their homes”). The overwhelming case law supporting the hoarding tendencies of those who view child pornography, along with the technical ability to retrieve data from computers, further supports that the eleven month time frame did not render the information stale.