Warrant for fraud records led to officers coming upon child porn. The police did not have to rely on the labels on CD-Roms because files could have been hidden there. United States v. Kearns, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66966 (N.D. Ga. September 15, 2006):<\/p>\n
Defendant does not contest that the warrant authorized the seizure of electronic storage media and the search of that media for evidence of real estate or financial fraud. Defendant also does not assert that the item of suspected child pornography initially discovered and seized was done so illegally. Rather, Defendant argues that “when Secret Service Agent Murray, . . . came across the first ‘JPG’ file containing suspected child pornography on the defendant’s external media music CD, which exceeded the scope of the warrant, he did not terminate his search of the CD and seek a search warrant for suspected child pornography.” (Id. at 3.) <\/p>\n
The Court agrees that a search must be constitutionally reasonable and its scope constitutionally proper. See Horton v. California,<\/em> 496 U.S. 128, 138 (1990). The Court concludes the search conducted here met these constitutional requirements. Special Agent Murray, who searched the electronic media, considered each kind of storage media before he determined the reasonable method for searching it. In searching a computer generally, which contains very large amounts of data, he opened those files where he was likely to find documents or information described in the warrant, rather than searching each stored item. Smaller storage media, and CDs in particular, required a different approach. For CDs, Special Agent Murray opened each file. This was necessary to insure that he identified all material permitted to be seized pursuant to the warrant, because he knew files could be saved under different names and named to disguise their contents. Defendant argues that procedure should have been altered once Special Agent Murray opened the first file with a .jpg identifier and a suggestive title and discovered suspected child pornography.<\/p>\n
Under the facts here, it was not unreasonable for Agent Murray to open briefly each file on CD29 to view it for evidence of fraudulent activity. In this case, the government intercepted a conversation in which Defendant stated he was aware of the investigation and had taken step to alter his electronic storage media, specifically, by deleting information from it. (R&R, at 7-8.) Importantly, Special Agent Murray was aware that in CDs like CD29, files can be saved under a name and extension which disguises the content of the file. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion that Special Agent Murray should have stopped short of opening and viewing the files containing child pornography because he should have known what kind of material each file contained without having to open it, Special Agent Murray was authorized to cursorily review the files to determine if they were covered by the search warrant. (R&R, at 18-19.) The Magistrate correctly pointed out that the warrant authorized the search of photographs related to fraud; therefore the agent was permitted to open and inspect contents of graphical images. In fact, the agent even found financial or business documents that were labeled with a .pdf format, but instead contained pictures. (R&R, at 20.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Passengers clearly have standing to challenge the stop of their vehicle. The stop was justified, however, by an unsafe turn. Then, reasonable suspicion developed. United States v. Spragling, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66908 (S.D. Ohio September 19, 2006).*<\/p>\n
Defendant failed to show a Franks<\/em> violation as showed by the hearing on the motion. The statements were neither false nor reckless. United States v. Olander, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66824 (D. Or. September 18, 2006).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading