| D. Virginia [E.D.] |
|
Reminder: These case digests are provided for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney whom they have hired for that purpose.2010U.S. v. Willard, Action Number 3:10-CR-154 (E.D.Va. 9-20-2010) — Defendant was identified as a possible sharer of child pornography files by FBI agents using the Wyoming Toolkit database and Peer Spectre software to monitor a peer-to-peer file sharing network. Law enforcement officers requested and were granted authority to put a pen register on the Internet connections of defendant and his father. Analysis of the results of the pen register indicated that defendant had shared 30 child pornography files on 4 separate occasions. That information was used to obtain a search warrant for defendant's computer. Forensic analysis of the computer revealed both still and video images of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the material found on his computer on the grounds that use of the Wyoming Toolkit database and Peer Spectre software constitutes a wiretap and enables agents to collect information far beyond the scope of the authorized pen register. He also moved to suppress statements made to police regarding his use of LimeWire on the grounds that his waiver of his Miranda rights was not voluntary. The Court rejected the wiretap argument, stating that the software tools used by law enforcement do not intercept electronic communications (which would be in violation of the Wiretap Act absent a warrant), but instead, analyze information that is stored in various computers connected to the peer-to-peer network, including defendant's. The use of the software, the Court said, is more akin to data mining than wiretapping. The Court also concluded that defendant's statements regarding LimeWire were voluntary, despite his protestations that police took advantage of his sleep-deprived state and bipolar condition and failed to read him his rights.Valdez v. Runion, Civil Action No. 3:09cv753 (E.D.Va. 9-8-2010) — Defendant was convicted in state court on two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child and filed in federal court a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Among other things, petitioner argued that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress child pornography images found on his computer. The warrant in question was based on statements by the victim that petitioner had shown him child pornography on his laptop, and authorized police to seize material "in any way related to children." The Court agreed that the language of the warrant was broad, but not so much so to be obviously deficient. Petitioner also argued that his counsel should have filed a motion to suppress based on the failure of police to obtain a separate search warrant once the images of child pornography were found. The Court held that there was no need to do so, since the images clearly fell within the scope of the search warrant. The petitioner, the Court said, failed to show that counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress was constitutionally deficient, or that the state court would have granted the motion to suppress even if it had been filed. |
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
