CA4: Warrant did not seek child porn but evidence of threats to have sex with young boys, and that was good enough

Anonymous e-mails were sent to a church describing sex with young boys, and the police were able to search back through the e-mail’s IP information to an e-mail account in defendant’s wife’s name. The e-mails alluded to pictures. The search warrant for the computer and the e-mails did not specifically seek child pornography, but it did seek instrumentalities of the threats to have sex with young boys, and child porn qualified. A machine gun and silencer were also found in plain view. United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511 (4th Cir. 2010)*:

While the warrant did not explicitly authorize a search for child pornography, it did authorize a search for instrumentalities of computer harassment and “photographs … indicati[ve] of” this offense, which involves communicating “obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language,” or making a “suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature,” or threatening an “illegal or immoral act.” Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-152.7:1. Particularly in the context of the threats made in this case, which indicated that the person sending the e-mails to the church was a pedophile, pornographic images involving children were relevant to demonstrating the authorship and purpose of the e-mails. The e-mails stated that the sender could not face life without having sex with the boys and that he could not attend the church again unless he could give oral sex to a specific boy at the church, whom he identified by the child’s actual name. In addition, the sender of the e-mail stated, “I know your boy’s names. I know where they go for lunch after church. I know where they live. I know when they come and leave school. There’s boys I’d love to sleep with right now. There is an endless supply. Boy dick is everywhere.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.