Officers investigating a beating of the defendant looked in his ransacked house and bumped a computer, and the screen lit up showing an image of child pornography. Defendant’s wife consented only to a search for drug activity, and the search exceeded the authority. Still, the searches were valid because the officer did not wilfully exceed the scope of consent. United States v. Wells, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54097 (S.D. Iowa July 15, 2008)*:<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the court finds that Officer Denger did not exceed the scope of Ms. Wells’s consent when he opened three images of child pornography on the defendant’s computer. While purposeful searching for images of child pornography would have been outside the scope of Ms. Wells’s consent [see United States v. Carey<\/em>, 172 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 1999)], Officer Denger’s discovery of the photographs was inadvertent and did not constitute an abandonment of the authorized search. He appropriately halted the search and obtained a new search warrant for evidence of child pornography.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Having been given permission to drive a car, defendant had standing to contest its search. A traffic stop led to a plain view of a gun clip and a further search of the car finding the gun. United States v. Bell, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53791 (D. V.I. July 15, 2008).*<\/p>\n
In contrast, where the defendant did not know the last name of the owner of the car he was driving yet had a [suspicious] insurance card with his name as an authorized driver, and he disclaimed everything in the car at the time of the stop, and he did not testify to his interest in the car, he lacked standing. United States v. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53804 (D. Utah July 15, 2008)*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading