N.D.Iowa: Use of a software company to retrieve deleted images after seizure of media was reasonable

The use of a private software company to retrieve deleted images did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A law enforcement officer was not necessary at the time of the search, and their expertise made this reasonable. Also, defendant was permitted to file his motion to suppress after the motions deadline where the motion to dismiss was first denied and the defendant’s indictment was superseded. CI’s detailed description of images of apparent child pornography that he saw in defendant’s home supported issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Heggebo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67527 (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2010).*

Defendant’s email activities, while the last was 13 months before the search warrant, showed that the warrant was not stale and there was still probable cause to believe that child pornography was present. There is no requirement that the judge issuing the search warrant actually see the pictures unlike adult porn. The warrant for the entire premises was not overbroad, although others lived there. United States v. Rubinstein, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67896 (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2010).*

Defendant was in a barbershop, and officers wanted him to come outside voluntarily if possible. The court concludes that the defendant was not arrested until he was handcuffed outside despite the officer being armed. The officer, of course, wanted to “control the situation” for safety reasons in case defendant panicked or attempted to struggle with the officers, but that intent was known to defendant. United States v. Wiggan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67717 (D. Conn. July 8, 2010).*