{"id":5885,"date":"2011-08-10T04:21:53","date_gmt":"2011-08-10T04:21:53","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-08-10T04:21:53","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5885","title":{"rendered":"CA6: The possibility somebody else could have used defendant&#8217;s wifi connection at home did not negate PC for CP from his IP"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An IP address for shared child pornography is sufficient nexus for probable cause. The possibility somebody else could have used his wireless router to access child pornography does not negate probable cause. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/11a0531n-06.pdf\">United States v. Gillman<\/a>, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15932, 2011 FED App. 0531N (6th Cir. August 2, 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s permitting a peer-to-peer download of child pornography was probable cause for a search warrant for his computer. \u201cAssuming that Defendant had a subjective expectation in privacy in the information, that subjective expectation is one that society and the law is not prepared to recognize. A person has no legitimate expectation in privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. [\u00b6] Further, once an investigator locates prohibited data using a peer-to-peer program, the internet subscriber information which is available to the investigator is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. &#8230; There is no legitimate expectation of privacy in noncontent customer information provided to an internet service provider by one of its customers.\u201d United States v. Conner, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85452 (S.D. Ohio August 3, 2011).*<\/p>\n<p>Defense counsel was not ineffective for not finding that defendant\u2019s prior conviction did not involve a gun or that he was permitted to travel to an adjoining county. He was on parole and subject to a parole search condition, and the search would have occurred anyway, so there is no prejudice. United States v. Henry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85524 (E.D. Pa. August 3, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5885\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}