The government showed probable cause for the search warrant for defendant\u2019s computer at a business based on tips from two CIs that included a reference to defendant traveling to the Philippines where he allegedly obtained child pornography and the State Department confirmed his travel there and the CIs having seen child porn on defendant\u2019s computer. It was not required that the specific sex acts be described. United States v. Pavulak, 672 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2009):<\/p>\n
With respect to defendant’s contention that the descriptions of the images were insufficient to establish probable cause that defendant was violating state child pornography laws because there are no allegations of nudity, sexual contact, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, the court finds that the totality of the circumstances still provided a substantial basis for the judge’s finding of probable cause. United States v. Dennington, No. 01:07CR43, 2009 WL 2591763, at *21 – 22 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2009) (court found agent’s affidavit when “read in a holistic, practical and non-technical manner” provided a substantial basis for the magistrate’s determination that there was probable cause to believe there was pornographic material on defendant’s computer).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Government overlooked defendant passenger’s argument that his stop and the subsequent plain view violated his rights, too, under Brendlin<\/a>. “Few things are clearer about Fourth Amendment doctrine than this: the passenger of a motor vehicle has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop of that vehicle by the police. See United States v. Ross, 280 F. App’x 947, 948 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Brendlin<\/a>). Defendant clearly mounts such a challenge in this case. The government’s no-standing argument is utterly bogus.” On the merits, however, “The Court is persuaded that, under the particular circumstances of this case, Officer Fletcher was entitled to stop the subject vehicle in order to investigate his suspicions that its occupants had just committed a crime, or perhaps had witnessed criminal activity.” Therefore, the plain view was valid, and the motion to suppress is denied. United States v. Bradley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110732 (S.D. Ga. November 5, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading