| D. Kentucky [W.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. Hampton, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 10-39-JBC (W.D. Ky. 10-22-2010) — Defendant was identified as an individual possessing or distributing child pornography on three occasions between January, 2008 and March, 2009. A search warrant was executed at Defendant's home on January 27, 2010. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing that the evidence on which the warrant was based was stale. In reviewing a magistrate's recommendation to deny the motion, the District Court applied the four factor staleness test enunciated in United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2009). 1) The character of the crime: possession and distribution of child pornography typically occurs over a long period of time; 2) The criminal: if a suspect has lived at the targeted location for a long time, that supports a finding that evidence will be kept there for months or years; 3) The thing to be seized: By their nature, digital images of child pornography can be stored indefinitely; and 4) The place to be searched: A person's home, particularly one in which they have resided for many years, constitutes a "secure operational base" that supports a finding of probable cause that child pornography will be found there, even a year after the original identification of defendant. The District Court conceded that the magistrate had not specifically applied Frechette, but had applied the substance of the elements. The recommendation to deny was adopted.U.S. v. Smallwood, CASE NO. 5:08-CR-38 (W.D. Ky. 10-12-2010) — During an investigation of possible arson following a deadly fire at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, investigators seized (among other things) a hard drive they discovered in a desk firefighters had pulled from the house. Defendant moved to suppress all of the items seized, including the hard drive. The Court upheld the seizure of certain items located in the house under the plain view doctrine, but suppressed the hard drive and other items taken from inside the desk, since those items were not in plain view and not obviously connected with the lawful arson investigation. U.S. v. Lapradd, CASE NO. 3:10-CR-00076-R (W.D. Ky. 9-28-2010) — Defendant was observed viewing pornography at a public library, and the local police were called. They could not determine from a distance what defendant was viewing, and as they approached, defendant minimized all his browser windows. Defendant agreed to speak with an officer and was asked if he was viewing child pornography on the library computer. He admitted that he was, and that he had dowloaded some of the images onto a thumb drive in his possession. While defendant was speaking to the officer, other officers inspected the computer defendant had been using; the minimized browser windows contained images of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress all of the evidence, arguing that he was detained without Miranda warnings by the interviwing officer, that there was no probable cause to arrest him on suspicion of possession of child pornography, and that the viewing of the library computer without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected all of defendant's claims: defendant was not in custody during the initial interview at the library, he provided probable cause for the arrest through his own statements, and he had no expectation of privacy in a public library computer, and thus no warrant was required. The motion was denied. |
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.
