Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01408/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01408-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Jay Montgomery Lemon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Susan Richard

Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1408

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Aaron Jay Montgomery Lemon, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2009

Filed: January 7, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Aaron Jay Montgomery Lemon conditionally pleaded guilty to production of

child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and was sentenced to 240

months’ imprisonment. He appeals, arguing that the district court1

 erred in denying

his motion to suppress evidence because the search warrant was based on stale

information and thus not supported by probable cause. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 09-1408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622035
-2-

I.

Law enforcement agents began investigating Lemon as a result of a separate

investigation in San Francisco, California. On June 26, 2007, FBI agents in San

Francisco executed a search warrant at the workplace of George Halldin, who was

suspected of distributing child pornography online. A forensic examination of

Halldin’s computer revealed more than 9,000 images of child pornography and chat

logs showing that Halldin had traded child pornography with another individual who

used the screen name b2003, later identified as Lemon.

The chat logs revealed that the first interaction between Halldin and Lemon

occurred on November 4, 2006. Lemon initiated a conversation by asking Halldin,

“do u trade pics?” Halldin responded that he had pictures of preteens, and Lemon

asked “how yng?” Halldin replied that there was “no limit that way,” whereupon the

two men began exchanging pictures. The images that Lemon sent included depictions

of sexual acts with females appearing to be approximately five years of age. In a

subsequent chat that same day, Lemon stated that “i’ve got lots of boys,” and in a chat

that took place the following month, Lemon asked Halldin, “u got more baby boy?”

The FBI determined that Lemon chatted and exchanged child pornography with

Halldin on four occasions between November 4, 2006, and December 5, 2006. 

Based on the information from their investigation of Halldin, law enforcement

officers subpoenaed internet service providers and determined that the individual who

was using the b2003 screen name was located near Saint Paul, Minnesota. In April

2008, Sergeant William Haider of the Saint Paul Police Department assumed primary

responsibility for the investigation. He traced the IP address to Lemon’s apartment

and confirmed that the b2003 screen name was still active, registering login activity

on April 30, 2008.

Appellate Case: 09-1408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622035
-3-

In June 2008 Officer Haider sought a search warrant for Lemon’s apartment.

The warrant application included extensive discussion of Haider’s expertise in

investigating online distribution of child pornography. Haider acknowledged that the

exchange between Halldin and b2003 had occurred eighteen months earlier, but he

opined that a search of Lemon’s residence would likely result in discovery of child

pornography because b2003 had demonstrated behavior indicative of a preferential

collector. Haider stated that “[i]t is probable that this type of child pornography

collector will maintain child pornography images over an extended period of time as

[he] compulsively and systematically save[s] the collected material.” He further

explained that such an individual rarely destroys his collection and would likely

maintain child pornography on his computer hard drive for many years.

Haider received a search warrant, and a subsequent search revealed substantial

evidence that Lemon had been engaged in production and distribution of child

pornography. 

II.

On an appeal of a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review the

district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.

United States v. Pruneda, 518 F.3d 597, 603 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Lemon contends that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause

and that the evidence seized from his apartment should have been excluded.

“Probable cause means a ‘fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will

be found in a particular place,’ given the circumstances set forth in the affidavit.”

United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Illinois v. Gates,

462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). The date of the evidence in the affidavit is important to

the probable cause determination because untimely information may be deemed stale.

United States v. Summage, 481 F.3d 1075, 1078 (8th Cir. 2007). Lemon argues that

Appellate Case: 09-1408 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622035
-4-

Officer Haider’s affidavit was inadequate to establish probable cause because it

alleged that Lemon had last traded child pornography in December 2006, eighteen

months before the warrant issued. 

“There is no bright-line test for determining when information in a warrant is

stale.” Pruneda, 518 F.3d at 604. Rather, we look to the circumstances of the case,

including the nature of the crime involved. Id. “[T]he lapse of time is least important

when the suspected criminal activity is continuing in nature and when the property is

not likely to be destroyed or dissipated.” Horn, 187 F.3d at 786. 

We conclude that the information in the affidavit raised a fair probability that

a search of Lemon’s apartment would result in the discovery of child pornography.

Possession of child pornography is a crime that is continuing in nature, and the

evidence in the warrant application established that Lemon was unlikely to have

destroyed the illegal material. Although the last known exchange of child

pornography occurred in December 2006, Officer Haider cited evidence that the IP

address and b2003 screen name were used in April 2008. These facts supported the

inference that Lemon was still trading child pornography, particularly when coupled

with Officer Haider’s explanation that Lemon’s behavior in November and December

2006 was indicative of a preferential collector who would maintain his collection for

a long period of time. 

Lemon argues that Officer Haider’s assertion about the practices of pedophiles

was mere conjecture, unsupported by evidence. This contention is belied, however,

by both the warrant application and a large body of precedent. Officer Haider’s

affidavit provided significant detail about his qualifications and explained how his

years of experience supported his conclusions. He also cited specific portions of the

chat transcripts between Lemon and Halldin to demonstrate why he believed Lemon

was a preferential collector of chid pornography. Many courts, including our own,

have given substantial weight to testimony from qualified law enforcement agents

Appellate Case: 09-1408 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622035
-5-

about the extent to which pedophiles retain child pornography. See, e.g., United States

v. Chrobak, 289 F.3d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. MoralesAldahondo, 524 F.3d 115, 119 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110,

125 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Riccardi, 405 F.3d 852, 861 (10th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The eighteen-month interim between Lemon’s last interaction with Halldin and

the warrant application, though not insignificant, is hardly unprecedented. In United

States v. Maxim, 55 F.3d 394, 397 (8th Cir. 1995), we upheld a warrant based in part

on three-year-old information about the defendant’s illegal possession of a firearm,

because the suspected offense was continuing in nature and because expert testimony

established that possessors of illegal firearms often keep their weapons for a long

period of time. Similarly, in Morales-Aldahondo, the First Circuit held that a threeyear lapse between the defendant’s purchase of child pornography and the warrant

application did not render the information stale. 524 F.3d at 119. The court noted the

considerable evidence in the warrant application demonstrating that pedophiles do not

quickly dispose of child pornography, observing that “[t]his is not a new revelation.”

Id.; cf. United States v. Prideaux-Wentz, 543 F.3d 954, 958-59 (7th Cir. 2008)

(holding the warrant invalid because the date of the evidence was uncertain and could

have been easily ascertained, but refusing to hold that evidence two to four years old

is stale as a matter of law). 

Lemon contends that United States v. Rugh, 968 F.2d 750 (8th Cir. 1992),

requires us to hold that the evidence supporting the warrant was stale. We disagree.

In Rugh, the defendant argued that the warrant was invalid because it was based on

evidence of child molestation and possession of child pornography sixteen months

before the warrant application. Although the district court found that the information

was stale, we did not reach the issue of staleness because the government failed to

challenge the district court’s finding on appeal. Id. at 753. Instead, we affirmed the

district court’s conclusion that the search was covered by the good-faith exception to

Appellate Case: 09-1408 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622035
-6-

the exclusionary rule, holding that the police could have reasonably believed that the

defendant would still have child pornography in his home. Id. at 754. Rugh did not,

as Lemon contends, establish that sixteen-month-old evidence of possession of child

pornography is stale as a matter of law. Indeed, in the seventeen years since we

decided Rugh, technological advances have increased the ease with which child

pornography may be produced, maintained, or distributed—making it all the more

likely that the contraband will be retained. See, e.g., United States v. Newsom, 402

F.3d 780, 783 (7th Cir. 2005) (observing that increased computer storage capacity

may make it easier to retain child pornography for a significant period of time). 

The evidence in the warrant application established that Lemon was interested

in child pornography and that he had traded a significant amount of it on four

occasions in late 2006. That information, augmented by Officer Haider’s expert

testimony and evidence that the screen name and IP address were still in use, was

sufficient to create a fair probability that a search of Lemon’s apartment would yield

child pornography. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that the

warrant was supported by probable cause.

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1408 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/07/2010 Entry ID: 3622035