The use of a private software company to retrieve deleted images did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A law enforcement officer was not necessary at the time of the search, and their expertise made this reasonable. Also, defendant was permitted to file his motion to suppress after the motions deadline where the motion to dismiss was first denied and the defendant\u2019s indictment was superseded. CI\u2019s detailed description of images of apparent child pornography that he saw in defendant\u2019s home supported issuance of the search warrant. United States v. Heggebo, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67527 (N.D. Iowa July 7, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s email activities, while the last was 13 months before the search warrant, showed that the warrant was not stale and there was still probable cause to believe that child pornography was present. There is no requirement that the judge issuing the search warrant actually see the pictures unlike adult porn. The warrant for the entire premises was not overbroad, although others lived there. United States v. Rubinstein, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67896 (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was in a barbershop, and officers wanted him to come outside voluntarily if possible. The court concludes that the defendant was not arrested until he was handcuffed outside despite the officer being armed. The officer, of course, wanted to \u201ccontrol the situation\u201d for safety reasons in case defendant panicked or attempted to struggle with the officers, but that intent was known to defendant. United States v. Wiggan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67717 (D. Conn. July 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading