The officer got defendant’s consent to take and search his computer by saying that he wanted the child pornography to locate the abused children. This was not a material misrepresentation to get consent. It doesn’t work that way in getting statements, either. Computer search not suppressed. United States v. Webb, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75 (S.D. Ala. January 4, 2010):<\/p>\n
Webb’s primary argument is that he was tricked into consenting because he believed that the agent’s purpose was to find and protect the children that were depicted in the images. The recording clearly supports a finding that the agent’s statement led Webb (or any reasonable person) to believe that the agent’s primary purpose for asking for consent was to find the abused children. However this does not render the consent involuntary. In Tukes v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 508, 516 (11th Cir. 1990) the Court rejected the defendant’s “contention that police are under an obligation to tell a suspect that he is the sole suspect when they seek consent for a search[]” and held that “[t]o require that a suspect be fully aware of the investigator’s view of the degree of the suspect’s involvement in the offense would contradict Schneckloth.” The same reasoning is applicable in this instance.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the recording does not support a finding that the agent materially misrepresented the nature of the inquiry. See U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1033 (5th Cir. 1970) (providing that “the mere failure of a revenue agent … to warn the taxpayer that the investigation may result in criminal charges, absent any acts by the agent which materially misrepresent the nature of the inquiry, do not constitute fraud, deceit and trickery[]”). No doubt, it is a primary focus of the FBI in all child pornography cases to locate the producer of the pornography as well as the abused children; thus the court finds these statements to be true and not misleading. As to Webb’s potential exposure to criminal prosecution, in this case the agent clearly told Webb that he already knew that child pornography images were downloaded to Webb’s gigatribe account. The fact that the agent did not explain to Webb that Webb could be criminally prosecuted for possession of child pornography was not a material misrepresentation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading