In a corporate office search, defendant should have presented an affidavit to show his standing in the office space. Despite that, however, the government’s search inventory strongly supports his standing because it shows documents taken from what was described as his office (“Daniel Carpenter Office 1”, “Daniel Carpenter Office 2”). The search warrants’ adoption of attachments limited the breadth of the warrants. His Franks challenge fails because the uncontested part of the affidavit still shows probable cause. Despite defendant’s standing to challenge the search, he doesn’t have standing to seek return of corporate records. Besides, the government avers they are still being reviewed in connection with the fraud scheme, and there is no fixed time period for return. United States v. Carpenter, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171646 (D.Conn. Dec. 24, 2015).
Downloading of child pornography from a specific IP address linked to defendant is probable cause for a search warrant for the house. United States v. Askren, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171296 (D.Nev. Oct. 5, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171295 (D.Nev. Dec. 23, 2015).*