NM: While camera was named in a CP warrant, there was no PC for it, so its search was suppressed

The search warrant was based on probable case based on an IP address linked to child pornography downloads. Including a digital camera, however, was a constitutional violation because there was nothing linking defendant’s camera to the probable cause or the manufacture of child porn. Images found in the camera were properly suppressed. State v. Gurule, 150 N.M. 49, 256 P.3d 992 (2011), Certiorari Granted, 266 P.3d 633, 2011 N.M. LEXIS 374 (N.M., June 8, 2011), Writ of certiorari granted State v. Gurule, 2011 N.M. LEXIS 522 (N.M., Dec. 21, 2011), revd State v. Gurule, 2013 N.M. LEXIS 180 (June 13, 2013) posted here:

Instead, the dispositive issue is whether there was probable cause to permit the search of the camera. To the extent that the officers could have looked at images readily viewable at the scene, there is no indication that they did so in this case—it was not until after the camera was seized and a forensic examination conducted months later that the illegal images were discovered. In the absence of any indication that this camera, which did not contain a memory card, was being used for the storage of internet child pornography, or was being used for the independent manufacture of pornography, there was no substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause that the camera would contain child pornography.

The government failed to prove exigency for a warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment. The defendant did not know that the police were outside, and his house was built on stilts so they could see anybody coming or going. United States v. Chaney, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42646 (D. Alaska April 19, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.