The search warrant for child pornography was not stale, based on the officer\u2019s experience. [Since no case has ever found staleness in child pornography cases, why don\u2019t they just cut to the chase and take judicial notice?] United States v. Seitter, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168106 (D. Kan. Oct. 10, 2017).*<\/p>\n
Although this child pornography case has been pending for two years, defendant filed a \u201cdilatory motion to suppress\u201d three weeks before trial that could be denied for lateness alone. Nevertheless, the government was ordered to respond, the parties agree on the material facts, and the motion was denied and the case went to trial. This is the later opinion. There was probable cause for issuance of the search warrant for his cell phones for child pornography. There was a second warrant sought by the government, but that was just an abundance of caution. United States v. Cosby, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167558 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 11, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search warrant for child pornography was not stale, based on the officer\u2019s experience. [Since no case has ever found staleness in child pornography cases, why don\u2019t they just cut to the chase and take judicial notice?] United States v. … Continue reading