Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cr-00284/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cr-00284-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robin Blake
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBIN BLAKE,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08-cr-0284 OWW 

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to

Suppress Evidence seized August 11, 2005 by Deputies of the

Merced County Sheriff’s Office pursuant to a search warrant

issued by the Superior Court of California, County of Merced

Judge on or about August 5, 2005. Defendants’ computers were

seized on August 11, 2005. The hard drives were forensically

analyzed over the period August to September 23, 2005. 

The search warrant was issued as the result of an

investigation of Defendant based on an accusation by a juvenile

female that the Defendant had shown her images of pornography on

his computer. The Defendant also had allegedly attempted to take

sexually explicit digital photographs of the minor female in the

nude. The Defendant also was suspected of having sought to

1

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

induce the 11 year old female, who was the daughter of his

girlfriend, to view sexually explicit images on his computer. 

Defendant previously pled guilty to a violation of California

Penal Code § 288.2, exhibiting harmful matter to a minor with the

intent to seduce the minor. The events which form the bases for

Defendant’s conviction and the search warrant, occurred

approximately twelve months prior to the August 5, 2005 issuance

of the search warrant. 

I. THE SEARCH

The detailed pornographic images described in the indictment

were found on one of Defendant’s computers seized pursuant to

search warrant executed on August 11, 2005. The laptop computer,

desktop computer, two external hard drives, zip disks, compact

disk, and the evidence of Defendant’s dominion and control of the

premises and its contents, were all seized during that search. 

A subsequent forensic analysis of the desktop computer

revealed several images of the minor female victim, recovered

from the computer hard drive, despite the computer user’s attempt 

to delete them. Some photos depicted the victim posing with no

shirt on, exposing her bare back, corroborating her previous

description to law enforcement. There were also images of the 11

year old victim lying on the sofa with her clothes on, but with

her legs spread. In one image, the victim had her legs spread

and her hand down the front of her pants. 

Forensic examination revealed on the same computer in

unallocated or “slack” space (where the computer user had

attempted to delete files but they had not yet been overwritten),

2

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

which were recoverable with forensic software, images of one or

more females who appeared to be approximately 14 years old in

various stages of undress. Some images depicted a young girl

completely nude showing her breasts and/or genital area. 

Additional numerous images were located under the location:

/mypictures//preteen; which appeared to be child pornography. 

The approximately 60 images in this folder that depicted minors

engaged in sexually explicit poses and/or in sexual acts with

other minors or adults. Those images were accessed on dates

ranging from June 16, 2005 to August 10, 2005. The folder had

been created on December 27, 2002. Eighty-six (86) images of

suspected child pornography were located in “slack space.” 

Additional evidence of child pornography files and how it

was acquired were found on Defendant’s computer. Twenty-seven

(27) video files related to child pornography were found in a

folder created December 27, 2002, last accessed on August 11,

2005. The peer-to-peer file-sharing program - Limewire was found

on the computer in various folders associated with that program. 

Additional child pornography evidence was found on a Diamond Max

120 Gigabyte external hard drive seized at the Defendant’s

residence. The Defendant’s guilty plea to the Penal Code § 288.2

charge was entered in July, 2008. 

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Affirmative Right to Challenge State Search Warrant. 

The government’s argument that the Defendant’s guilty plea

to the 288.2 charge represents a break in the chain of events

which preceded it in the criminal process and prevents him from

3

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

raising independent claims related to deprivation of

constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the

guilty plea, is not applicable. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S.

258, 266 (1973). 

As analyzed in open court, the defendant’s “grooming”

behavior and attempts to induce the minor to have exposure to

sexual images and physical contact with him, provided probable

cause for the issuance of the search warrant, for computer stored

material related to the sexual exploitation of an 11 year old

minor female. Whether or not the search warrant was supported by

probable cause and properly executed, to the extent it is sought

to provide the foundation for a separate crime, not charged by

indictment in this court, does not defeat Defendant’s standing to

challenge the search in this separate federal prosecution. 

B. Probable Cause for Issuance of the Search Warrant.

The standard under Illinois v. Gates, 460 U.S. 213, 235

(1983) is that the evidence need only show the probability, not a

prima facia showing, of criminal activity to justify issuance of

the search warrant. The law requires that the evidence be

sufficient to answer the “common sense, practical question

whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe that contraband or

evidence is located in a particular place before issuing a search

warrant.” United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir.

2006). This requires a showing of a probability of criminal

activity and that the evidence of a crime will be located at the

place to be searched. 

The reviewing standard applicable to search warrant

4

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

affidavits, is that hyper-technical interpretations should not be

used, rather, common sense is to be applied and doubtful cases

are resolved in favor of upholding the warrant. Gates, 462 U.S.

at 236; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 106 (1965). 

The Magistrate Judge’s determination of whether probable cause

exists “should be paid great deference.” Gourde, 440 F.3d at

1069; United States v. Hay, 231 F.3d 630, 634 n.4 (9th Cir.

2000). 

Here, the evidentiary detail permitted the issuing Judge to

make a fact-specific, practical, and common sense determination

that Defendant, in his home, attempted to expose an 11 year old

minor female, who was the daughter of his girlfriend, to sexually

explicit matter with the intent to seduce the minor. The

Defendant engaged in inappropriate conduct with the girl. The

victim sat on the Defendant’s lap, when the Defendant asked her

if she wanted to see something on his computer. He then

exhibited images of adult women, some in bikinis, others who were

nude. One image depicted a nude woman with her legs spread open

and the victim described the “woman’s private area as ‘shaved.’” 

When the victim asked to watch a pay-per-view movie, the

Defendant agreed but said he wanted to take a nude photograph of

the victim. The victim told Defendant that she did not want him

to take nude photographs of her, but, agreed to let Defendant

take a photograph of her without her shirt, but only from the

back. The Defendant took a digital photograph of the victim’s

unclothed back and told the victim not to tell her mother that it

“was just between them.” 

No more than a probability of criminal activity is required

5

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to support the issuance of a search warrant. Here, evidence that

Defendant exhibited harmful matter to a minor with the intent to

seduce the minor at the Defendant’s residence, was supported by

the facts specifically set forth in the search warrant and that

sexually explicit materials would be found on the Defendant’s

computer, where the victim had observed photographs of partially

clothed and nude females on Defendant’s computer. 

United States v. Spilotro, 800 F.2d 959, 963 (9 Cir. 1986) th

applies a three part test whether a search warrant is

sufficiently precise: “(1) whether probable cause exists to seize

all items of a particular type described in the warrant; (2)

whether the warrant sets out objective standards by which

executing officers can differentiate items subject to seizure

from those which are not; and (3) whether the government was able

to describe the items more particularly in light of the

information available to it at the time the warrant was issued. 

Id., at 963-964. Here, computers in the possession of Defendant

including a laptop and desktop were within the scope of probable

cause, because sexually exploitive material including nude images

of a female, could be found on Defendant’s computer, where the

victim had observed some of such images. The limitation of

computers to be searched was for such evidence of child sexual

exploitation and sexually explicit images and child pornography. 

This limiting specificity was more than sufficient. The Ninth

Circuit has upheld the wholesale search of computer files for

specifically defined items. United States v. Hay, 231 F.3d 630,

637-38 (9 Cir. 2000) (upholding search of entire computer th

system where warrant authorized seizure of child pornography,

6

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 6 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

because child pornography is sufficiently specific to focus

search). Such a practice does not offend concerns behind the

Fourth Amendment because “a search of a computer . . . is not

inherently more intrusive than the physical search of an entire

house for a weapon or drugs.” United States v. Upham, 168 F.3d

532, 535 (1 Cir. 1999), quoted in Hay, at p. 637, n.6. Here, st

the forensic analysis of the contents of the computer hard drive

were conducted on September 9 and 23 following initial reviews on

August 18 or 19. This was within thirteen to forty-nine days

following the actual seizure of the computer. 

C. The Evidence Was Not Stale.

The probable cause for the search warrant was not based on

stale information. An approximate twelve month lapse occurred

after the events giving rise to application for the search

warrant. The declaration in support of the application for

search warrant showed that the images sought to be recovered from

Defendant’s computer were perpetuated on media which included

images, text fragments and instant messages, all of which can be

recovered from a computer hard drive, even if they had been

deleted by the user. Special forensics software such as Encase

is used to recover images from the hard drive of a computer. 

Substantial legal authority from circuits around the United

States confirms that a twelve month lapse of time is not an

unreasonable delay. United States v. Morales-Adahondo, 524 F.3d

115, 119 (1 Cir. 2008) (passage of three years). Because the st

computer was in the possession of Defendant and the information

was stored on a hard drive, there was little risk that the

7

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 7 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

evidence would not be available, recoverable, or that it would

have been subject to disruption. The issuing Judge was well

justified in believing that evidence of the sexually exploitive

materials would still be at the Defendant’s residence in his

computer. Defendant has not suggested any prejudice nor that the

search was not for specifically identified subject matter. 

D. The Search Warrant Was Not Overbroad.

The description of the property to be seized was any and all

computer equipment, hardware, and software, and was qualified by

the limitation that only evidence of child exploitation or child

pornography be the subject of the seizure. Moreover, because a

computer and its hard drive, are not severable, and as noted by

the government, the Defendant has not filed a motion to return

property, make it unlikely that he has suffered the seizure of

innocent property which should not have been subject to seizure. 

There is no legal requirement that a search warrant include

a specification of the precise manner in which the search is to

be executed. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98 (2006). 

As the Tenth Circuit has explained, while a search warrant must

describe with particularity the object of the search, “the

methodology used to find those objects need not be described:

this court has never required warrants to contain a

particularized computer search strategy.” United States v.

Brook, 427 F.3d 1246, 1251 (10 Cir. 2005). After a computer th

search, “[i]t is unrealistic to expect a warrant to prospectively

restrict the scope of a search by directory, file name or

extension or to attempt to structure search methods - that

8

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 8 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

process must remain dynamic.” United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d

1078, 1092-1093 (10 Cir. 2009). th

A pinpoint computer search restricting the search to a

particular program or specific search terms is unrealistic. 

United States v. Adjani, 452 F.3d 1140, 1149-50 (9 Cir. 2006). th

Nor is a search protocol required to comply with a search

warrant. United States v. Kahanni, 502 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (11th

Cir. 2007); United States v. Cartier, 543 F.3d 442, 447-48 (8th

Cir. 2008). Defendant relies on United States v. Comprehensive

Drug Testing, Inc., 579 F.3d 989, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2009)

(“CDT”). The government distinguishes Comprehensive Drug

Testing, as the challenge there was to an allegedly overbroad

seizure of evidence held by a third-party. The remedy sought was

not suppression of evidence in a criminal case, but return of

property in which privacy rights were claimed in a civil

proceeding. 

Second, the CDT case addressed a federal search warrant

issued by a U.S. Magistrate Judge, not a state judge. 

Third, CDT purports only to issue “guidance” to Federal

Magistrate Judges to be considered for future search warrants,

not state judges. 

Fourth, the CDT Court’s guidance applies to future search

warrants not those that already have been executed, such as the

state search warrant here. 

Fifth, good faith reliance on an existing warrant can

salvage an infirm search warrant. The government relies on the

doctrine that if police act in objectively reasonable reliance on

a subsequently invalidated search warrant, the good faith

9

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 9 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

exception may save the search. Herring v. U.S., 129 S.Ct. 695,

701 (2009); quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922

(1984). 

E. State Search Warrant Law 

Defendant has emphasized California Penal Code § 1534(a)1

and the requirement of the return of seized property within ten

days. The language of the state law is that if the search

warrant is not returned or strict compliance is not otherwise

had, that the search warrant is void. 

(a) A search warrant shall be executed and returned

within 10 days after date of issuance. A warrant

executed within the 10-day period shall be deemed to

have been timely executed and no further showing of

timeliness need be made. After the expiration of 10

days, the warrant, unless executed, is void. The

documents and records of the court relating to the

warrant need not be open to the public until the

execution and return of the warrant or the expiration

of the 10-day period after issuance. Thereafter, if

the warrant has been executed, the documents and

records shall be open to the public as a judicial

record. 

Cal. Penal Code § 1534(a).

The weight of authority holds that the test of whether a

search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is one of federal

law, “neither enlarged by what one state court may have

countenanced, nor diminished by what another may have colorably

suppressed.” United States v. Becerra-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1167,

1174 (9 Cir. 2005); see also, United States v. Smith, 9 F.3d th

1007, 1014 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[T]he touchstone of a Federal Court’s

 The Federal Rule is found at Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(i) 1

requiring execution of the search warrant and return of property

within ten days. 

10

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 10 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

review of a state search warrant secured by local police

officials and employed in a Federal prosecution is the Fourth

Amendment and its requirements and no more”). Whether or not a

forensic computer search warrant complied with the ten-day rule

set forth in California Penal Code § 1534 does not necessarily

determine the legality of that state authorized search under the

Fourth Amendment. 

Under federal law, “neither Rule 41 nor the Fourth Amendment

impose any time limitation on the government’s forensic

examination of the evidence seized.” United States v. Triumph

Capital Group, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 31, 66 (D.Conn. 2002). “The

Fourth Amendment only requires that the subsequent search of the

computer be made within a reasonable time period.” United States

v. Mutschelknaus, 564 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1076 (D.N.D. 2008). 

Defendant admitted that he could find no case law supporting

his argument that a void return of property under state law

required suppression of evidence seized pursuant to the search

warrant. 

Defendant acknowledged that Rule 41(e) authorizing the

seizure of electronic storage media or the copying of

electronically stored information permits a later review of the

stored media information. The Advisory Committee Notes to the

2009 Rule 41 Amendments recognized that later analysis of the

contents of a computer are lawful. See also, United States v.

Hernandez, 183 F.Supp.2d 468, 480 (D.P.R. 2002); United States v.

Syphers, 426 F.3d 461, 469 (1 Cir. 2005): “[T]he Fourth st

Amendment itself contains no requirements about when the search

or seizure is to occur or the duration,” other than

11

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 11 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reasonableness. The reason for the rule is explained by

recognition that when computer hard drives are seized, the

evidence they contain is “frozen in time,” obviating staleness

concerns present with other warrants and ensuring that probable

cause continues to exist. Matter of the Search of the Scranton

Housing Authority, 436 F.Supp.2d 714, 728 (M.D. Pa. 2006),

vacated on other grounds, 487 F.Supp.2d 530 (N.D.Pa. 2007)

(continuing forensic exam on a computer seized more than a year

earlier was valid). 

F. The Good Faith Exception Validates the Search and Seizure.

Even if a seizure is technically unreasonable or unlawful,

where officers act in reasonable reliance on a duly issued search

warrant by a neutral and detached Magistrate, which is ultimately

found not to be supported by probable cause, th seized evidence

shall not be suppressed where the officers have acted in good

faith and not dishonestly or recklessly. United States v. Leon,

468 U.S. at 926. Here, none of the officers engaged in wrongful

conduct. A neutral officer took a report from an 11 year old

victim of a sexual crime, to which the Defendant has pled guilty. 

She described facts that revealed the Defendant had attempted to

engage in “grooming” behavior to make sexual approaches to the

minor by exposing her to sexually explicit material on a computer

as part of his additional objective to take nude photos of the

victim. There are no material omissions or misstatements in the

affidavit supporting the issuance of the warrant nor any

misconduct identified by the Defendant to have been committed by

any officer. 

12

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 12 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The record establishes the officers relied in good faith in

seizing computers to search for child pornography and other

sexually explicit material, inappropriate for viewing by a minor.

They acted under color of an appropriately issued search warrant

under the authority of a state Supreme Court judge. 

III. CONCLUSION

For all the reasons discussed above, the Defendant’s Motion

to Suppress the seizure of Defendant’s computers and the results

of the forensic examination and analysis of the hard drives is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13

Case 1:08-cr-00284-OWW Document 45 Filed 02/25/10 Page 13 of 13