Defendant’s issues for appeal of denial of a suppression motion in a child porn case did not rise to exceptional circumstances for bail pending appeal. Child porn is a crime of violence where there is no bail pending appeal without exceptional circumstances. United States v. Bonczek, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87782 (S.D. N.Y. September 8, 2009):<\/p>\n
The Government urges that Mr. Bonczek has failed to make a clear showing of exceptional circumstances. Mr. Bonczek argues that the issues he will raise on appeal are “exceptional,” including:<\/p>\n
(1) The District Court failed to suppress the pornographic materials seized from Bonczek’s apartment, as it should have, and instead erroneously relied on the:<\/p>\n
(a) independent source doctrine; and
\n (b) inevitable discovery doctrine; and<\/p>\n(2) The affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to describe the child pornography with sufficient particularity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Of course, agreeing that the questions on appeal are substantial does not mean that they are exceptional. …<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
As to the exceptional nature of the law applicable to Mr. Bonczek’s suppression motion, there are no unusual legal or factual questions. There is abundant law on Mr. Bonczek’s issues for appeal, and the legal questions are not unusual, even if the Second Circuit has not specifically ruled on the sufficiency-of-the-affidavit issue that Mr. Bonczek challenges. See United States v. Jasorka, 153 F.3d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir. 1998).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Comment: Based on the cases I’ve read, without even knowing the specifics of the issue here, I would have to agree with the court that the chances of success on the appeal where PC is the issue is less than 1 in 30 because of the good faith exception. So few child porn searches win that, statistically, it is unlikely he will win on appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading