Defendant was on a peer to peer network sharing child pornography, but the government used a different way into his computer. He was linked to a network, and while he was using the computer sharing with others, the government got into his computer with \u201cenhanced software.\u201d He was sharing files, so he had no reasonable expectation of privacy from this particular intrusion. United States v. Gabel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107131 (S.D. Fla. September 16, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s traffic stop leaving a suspected \u201cstash house\u201d was valid, based on lack of mud flaps on his truck as required by state law. United States v. Rios, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107109 (D. Ariz. September 2, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was the subject of a child sexual abuse investigation, and a search warrant was obtained for his computer in South Dakota, and it was seized. It was transferred to Wisconsin where another search warrant was issued to search it. The search warrants were based on probable cause to believe that there was child pornography [despite all the boilerplate revealed in the opinion] because the victim\u2019s mother checked the computer and its Internet history and saw that child porn was defendant\u2019s focus. That gave probable cause. United States v. Houston, 754 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (D. S.D. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading