A case Lexis didn’t send to me, but reported by a colleague:<\/p>\n
Defendant’s being an alleged child molester in an interstate traveler case did not give probable cause to believe that child pornography would be found in his house. Even Leon<\/a> did not save it. United States v. Hodson<\/a>, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20240, 2008 FED App. 0348P (6th Cir. September 19, 2008):<\/p>\n We opined in United States v. Adkins, 169 F. App’x 961, 967 (6th Cir. 2006), that “[s]tanding alone, a high incidence of child molestation by persons convicted of child pornography crimes may not demonstrate that a child molester is likely to possess child pornography.” We adhere to that view and conclude that it was unreasonable for the magistrate judge in this case, when confronted with the request for the warrant, to infer such a nexus without further evidence to support that inference. It is similarly unreasonable for the officer executing the warrant either to infer that nexus herself or to rely on her own subjective knowledge to claim reasonable reliance on the warrant. 5 HN4An officer seeking a warrant must produce adequate supporting facts about the underlying circumstances to show that probable cause exists to support the particular search requested. United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1377 (6th Cir 1996) (citing Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 564, 91 S. Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1971), and Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41, 47, 54 S. Ct. 11, 78 L. Ed. 159 (1933)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading