E.D.Pa.: SW for CP here lacked all PC, and GFE doesn’t apply

Defendant was believed by the police to have been involved in sexual abuse of children, and he had strange eBay purchases and messages for used childrens’ underwear and pictures of children wearing them. The search warrant ultimately issued was for his computers and other devices, but there was no probable cause at all to search for child pornography, which they did. The warrant lacked probable cause for child porn, and the factors for applying the exclusionary rule all apply to the facts. United States v. Caesar, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206763 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2019).

[As for the heading: Adrian Cronauer: Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn’t we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? ‘Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we’d all be put out in K.P.]