S.D.Ohio: 13 months not too stale in CP case

Italian police discovered a child pornography website in Pennsylvania, and alerted police there. The provider of the website was searched, and links to defendant’s usage were found. The 13 month old information not stale. United States v. Kreitzer, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96660 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2013):

The staleness test does not exist “to create an arbitrary time limitation within which discovered facts must be presented to a magistrate.” Id. (quoting United States v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1382 (6th Cir. 1988)). Instead, it flexibly examines four “relevant variables” in connection with the information presented in the affidavit supporting the warrant:

1) the character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating conspiracy?)
2) the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?)
3) the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?)
4) the place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational base?).

United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Spikes, 158 F.3d at 923).

Note: I have never seen a successful staleness challenge in a child pornography case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.