## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3708 U NI T ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. G ARY P R I DE AUX -W ENTZ, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 C R 63

—Barb ara B. C rab b, Chief Judge

.
A RG UE D A PRI L 7, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 12, 2008

Befo re R IPPLE, W I L L I A MS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . W I LLI A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Gar y Pr i deaux-W entz w as convi cted o fpossess i ng chi l d pornog ra phy base d on ev i den ce o bt aine d dur i nga s ea r cho fhi s ho m e. The sea rch w ar ra nt w as supp or ted byan F BI age nt’ s a ffi davi t, w hi ch descr ibed sixty- ni ne i m age s o fchi l d pornog ra phy / er o ti ca u pl o ade d b y Pr i dea ux- W en tz o nt o e i g ht Y ah oo! e- grou p s, an d t h e a ffidav it al so con tained exp ert in f o rm at ion reg ar d in g g en er al c h ar ac te ris tic s o f ch ild2 N o. 07

- 3708 pornog ra phy col l ecto rs . On appeal, P ri deaux-W entz ar gu es th at th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t failed to es ta b lish p ro b ab le c au se be c au se t h e re is n o in for m at ion sp ec ific t o h im in th e a ffid av it b u t o n ly b oile rp l at e s ta te m en ts ab ou t c h ild p or nogr aphy col l ecto rs . A dd i ti onal l y, he c onte nd s that the info rm ati on r ega rdi ng the uplo aded pictures was st ale an d th er efo r e in ad eq u at e t o e st ab lish p ro b ab le cause f orthe sea rch. W e fi nd that the evi dence r el i ed on i n the war r an t affi dav i t was s ta l e, b utwe affi rm the denia l o fthe m oti on to supp re ss because the age nt act ed i n go od f ai th i n re l yi ng o n the sea rch w ar ra nt.

I . B AC KGR OUND On Januar y 3 1, 20 06, FBIS peci alA gent St eve n Pa u lso n obt ai ned a federa l se ar ch w ar ra nt f or t h e N ew Gla ri us, W i sc o ns i n r es i den ce o fthe defen dan t, Ga r y Pr i dea uxW entz. In re questi ng the s earch warra nt, A gent Pauls on subm i tte d a 40

- page, 66- parag ra ph affi davi t, wh i ch i nc l ude d c o m pl aint s s ubmi tt ed t o the Cybe r Ti p Li ne o fthe N ati onalCenterf orM i ssing and Exp l oi ted Chil dren ( “N CM EC ”) byYahoo! , a n Inter net s er vi ce pr ovi der ( “I S P” ) , r eg ar di ngpi ctur es c o nt aini ngc hi l d po r no g r aph y and e r o t i c a tha twe r e u pl o a de d t o e i g htY a ho o ! e - g r o up s. N C M E C i s a na t io n al cl earingh ou se th at gath ers inform ati on a b ou t m i ssing and expl oi ted chi l dren f orl aw en f o r ce m en t us e an d r ec ei ve s i nf o r m at i o n fr o m v ar i o us I SPs thro ugh the Cyber Tip Li ne. Inh is a ffid av it, A ge n t P au lso n e x p lain ed th at h is in ve st iga tio n w as ba se d on co m p l a in ts from N C M E C an d h is own r eco rds c heck. H e i ncl ud ed gene ra l i nfo rm ati onN o. 07

- 3708 3 about chi l d pornog ra phy, i ncl ud i ng t he r el evantst atute s an d de fi ni ti o ns ; bac k g r o und i nf o r m at i o n abo uthi s el ev en y ea r t en ur e wi ththe F BIa nd hi s r el ev an t tr aini nga nd ex p erience ap p rehe nd ing ch il d p ornogra p he rs; an d exp ert i nfo rm ati on r ega rdi ng the habi ts ofchi l d pornog ra phers. Age ntPaul so n al so i ndi ca te d tha t, a s a r es ul t o fhi s tr aini ng an d exp erience w ith th e FB I, he k n e w t h a t com p ut ers are used by i nd i vi du al s w ho explo i t ch i l dren

— i nc l udi ng co l l ec to r s of ch i l d po r no g r aph y

— to cor re spond w i th othe r l i ke- m i nd ed i nd i vi du al s thro ugh em ai l, chatr oo m s, e l e c t r o n i c b u l l e t i n b o a r d s , a n d In t e r n e tfi l e t r a n s fe r s . He note d that e vi dence ofan o nl i ne st orag e account i s o ften f o un d o n the ho me c o mput e r o f a us e r s ub s c ribi ng to an Inter net s er vi ce. A gent Pauls on a l so dis cussed the structur e ofYahoo! eg r o up s i n hi s a ffi da v i t, e xp l a i ni ngtha ts o me g r o up s spe c i a l i z e i n c hi l d p o r no g r a ph y . He the n de s c r ib e d e ach Cyber Tip s ubm i tte d to N CM EC r ega rdi ng the Yahoo! I D “j acki npu l pit 2001 ” a nd the ema i l address “j ac k i npul pi t2 00 1@y ah o o . co m . ” The Ya ho o ! I D i s a uni que i den ti fi ero fa us er ’ s ac co unt, a nd a n I D, a l o ngwi tha passw or d, i s r equi re d i n or der t o use Yahoo ! ’ s s ervi ces. Be t we e n A u g u s t1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d J a n u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , N C MEC r ec ei ve d ni ne te enCybe r Ti ps th at th e us erwi ththe “j ackinpu lp it20 01” I D up l oaded si xty- ni ne i m age s t o differen t Yahoo! e- gr oups, pi cture s that Agent Paul son i denti fi ed as both chi ld pornog ra phy and chil d ero ti ca. Age ntPaul so n i nc l ude d desc r i pti o ns ofea chi m ag e i n the affi davi t a nd info rm ati on pro vi ded byN CM EC A nal yst Lisa S tenze l

. S tenze l o pined thatte n ofthe ni netee n Cyber Ti p s co nt aine d c hi l d po r no g r aph y, whi l e th e o th ernine4 N o. 07

- 3708 Cyber Tips const i tuted “e ro ti ca/nudi s m/Bo y Lo v e . ” S tenze l re port ed that one ofthe ti ps conta i ned fi ve im ag es of previ ousl y i denti fi ed chi l d vi cti m s. The a ffi dav i t al so c o nt aine d i nf o r m at i o n r eg ar di ngthe ac c ou n t a n d su b sc rib er info rm at ion for “j ackinpu l pit200 1,” c o n n e c t i n gt h e Y a h o o ! I D t o P r i d e a u x - We n t z . O n S e p t e mber4, 20 03, a s ubpoena was ser ved on Yahoo! and A m er i ca Onli ne ( “A OL ”) , ano therI SP, r equesting a ccount subscr iberi nfo rm ati on f or“j ackinpu l pit 2001

. ” In re sponse to thi s r eque st, AO L pr o vi ded th e na m e “Ga r y W en tz ” an d an address i n Bel l evi l l e, W i sco nsi n. A gent Pauls on l ate r confi rm ed that “Gary W entz” was the sam e i nd i vi du alas Gary Pri deaux-W entz, wh o had resid ed at the Bel l evi l l e, W iscons in ad d ress since 1991. A gen t Pau lson also de t e rm i ned that Pri deaux-W entz and Tim oth y J. Galbra i th m o ve d t o N ew Gl ar us , W i sc o ns i n in Nov embe r 2 00 4, a nd th atb o thha d e m ai l a cc o unt s an d a c o m put era t th e new r esi dence. I n the a ffi da v i t, the r e wa s a l s o a de s c r i pt i o n o fa NCMEC Cyber Ti p that M i cro soft/M SN subm i tte d on S eptem ber7, 2002 , i nd i cating tha t i t had d isabl ed an ac count be cause the a ccount conta i ned chi l d p or n ogr aphy. The sc re en na m e of th e us ero fthe a cc o untwas “ Ger m o ” an d the acco unt ass oci ate d w i th the em ai l address was “w huzyurdade@ aol

. com . ” A gent Pauls on was abl e t o tr ace thi s a ccount to Pri deaux-W entz. A ge n t P au lso n als o p ro vid ed in for m at ion in t h e a ffid av it re ga rd in g “ c h ild p or n og ra p h y c olle c to r c h ar ac te ris tic s,” w hich w as bas ed on his ow n ex p erience along w ith ex p ert opi ni ons fro m othe r FBI ag ents i n the fi el d. A gent Pauls onN o. 07

- 3708 5 expla i ned that “[ c] hi l d p ornogr aphy col l ecto rs al m ost al w ays m ai ntai n and posses s thei r m ate ri ali n the pri vacy and secur i ty oft h eir h om es orso m e o therse cure l oca ti on wher e i t i s r ea di l y a va i l ab l e. ” Fu r th er m o r e, b ec au se the col l ecti on r eve al s the o ther w i se pri vate se xual desi re s o f the c ol l ecto r and repr ese nts hi s m ostcher i shed sexual f an ta si es , “ th e c o l l ec to r r ar ely, i fe ve r, di spo se s o fthe coll ection .” A gen t Pau lson not ed that w hile col lectors m ay re fi ne the i r m ate ri al s o verti m e, the ove ra l l si ze of thei r col l ecti ons tends to i ncre ase . Based on thi s inform ati on, the m agi str ate j ud ge i ssued a search w arran t, w hich w as ex ecu ted at Pride au x-W en tz’s re si dence i n N ew Gla rus on F ebr uary2, 2006

. On A pri l 19 , 2007, P ri deaux-W entz w as i nd i cted f oro ne co unt of posse ssi on o fchi l d porn og ra phy. H e fi l ed a m oti on t o quash the sea rch w ar ra nt and to suppress the evid en ce se i ze d pur su an t to the war r an t, r eque st ed a he ar i ng un d er Fra nk s v. D ela w a re, 438 U.S

. 15 4 ( 1978 ) , and cl ai m ed th atthe g o o d f ai th ex ce pti o n di d no t sa ve the war r an t. The m agistrate j ud ge recom m en d ed th at th e d istri ct cou rt deny P ri deaux-W entz’ s m oti ons, fi nd i ng tha t there was ampl e pr o babl e ca us e to s uppo r t th e war r an t an d th atthe goo d fa i th doctr i ne appli ed i fther e w as no probabl e ca use. Pri deaux-W entz fi l ed ti m el y obj ecti ons to the m agi str ate j udg e’ s r ec o m m en dat i o n a nd raised o ne ne w ar g um en t b as ed on a n o n - p re c ed en tia l ord er , U ni t e d S t at e s v. D oan , 24 5 F ed. Appx. 5 50 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07 ) ( unpub l i sh ed o r der )

. The d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s t in g ui s he d D oan , d e n ie d P r id eau x-W en tz’s m otions in the i r e nt i r ety, a nd e nt er ed ano r dera do pting th e m ag i st rate j udg e’ s Re po r t an d Re co m m en dat i o n.6 N o. 07

- 3708 On A ugust 1 5, 20 07, Pri de au x -W entz ple d gui l ty to posse s s i ngc hi l d p o r no g r a ph y i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 252( a) ( 4) , but he r ese rv ed the ri ght t o appeal the distr i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fhi s m oti on to s up press . H e was sente nced to 72 m onths i n pri son and now appeal s.

II. A N A L Y S IS A. Th e r e wa s no pr o ba bl e c a us e f o rt he s e a r c h. P rid ea u x - W en tz m ain ta in s th at th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t d id not establish p robab le cause bec au se A gen t Pau lson’s affidavi t r el i ed on s tal e info rm ati on, was unrel i abl e, c on ta in ed on ly ge n er al c h ar a c t e r i s t ics of ch ild pornog ra phers and noth i ng speci fi c to Pri deaux-W entz, an d di d no t d em onst r at e a su ffi ci en t ne xus b etwee n the al l eg ed cr i m i na l a ct i vi tya nd hi s ne w r es i den ce . Pr i dea uxW e n t z als o c on te n d s t h at be c au se th e w ar ra n t a ffid av it l ac k ed pr o babl e ca us e an d was b as ed o n mi sl ea di ng i nfo rm ati on, he was e nti tl ed to a hear i ng pursuant to Fra nk s v. D ela w a re, 438 U
. S. 154 (1978). H er e, the m agi str ate , rat h er than the di str i ct c ourt, det er m i ne d tha t pr o babl e ca us e ex i st ed to s upp ortthe sea rch w ar ra nt. Recent l y, we cl ar i fi ed the appropri ate st an d ar d ofr evi ew thatappli es i n deter m i ni ng the suffici ency ofa se ar c h warra nt i ssued i n thes e ci rcum sta nces. I n U nited Sta tes v. M cIn tire, 5 1 6 F.3d 576, 578 (7th Cir. 20 08 ) , we he l d tha t r ev i ewi ngthe suffi ci en cyofa war r an t “shoul d not t ake the f or m o fde nov o r ev i ew, ” an d “ o n the m ix ed qu es tio n w h e t h e r th e fa c ts ad d u p to ‘p ro b ab le ca us e’ unde r the r i g htl eg als ta nda r d, we g i ve no wei g htN o. 07

- 3708 7
to the di str i ct j ud ge’ s deci si on

— for th e ri g h t i n q u iry is whe th e r th e j u d g e wh o i s s u e d th e wa r r a n t ( r a r e l y t he sam e a s the j ud ge w ho r ule d on the m oti on t o supp re ss) a c t e d o n th e b a s i s o fp r o b ab l e c a us e . O n th a ti s s u e we m us t aff o r d ‘ g r ea t defer en ce ’ t o the i ss ui ngj ud g e’ s co ncl usi on. ” Id. The r efo r e, sinc e th e di st r i ctc o ur t ado pte d the m ag i st r at e’ s fi ndi ng s, we pay“ g r ea t defer en ce” to the m ag ist ra te ’s d et er m in at ion of p ro b ab le c au se . Se ei d. A pp l yi ng thi s sta nd ar d, w e fi nd thatthe w ar ra nt l acke d pr o b ab l e c a us e b e c a us e the e v i de nc e tha tAg e ntP a ul son reli ed on in his w arran t affi d avit w as stale. W hile “[ t]here i s no br i ght- l i ne t estf ordeter m i ni ng wh en i nfo rm ati on i s sta l e, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Koe l l i ng, 99 2 F
. 2d 817, 82 2 ( 8th Cir

. 19 93) , the w ar ra nt does noti nd i cate wh en the pi cture s wer e upl o ade d t o the Ya ho o ! e -group s, a nd the r e i s no w ay to disc er n this f act fro m the re cor d. W e hav e s ugg es ted th atthe s ta l en es s ar g um en t ta k es o n a di ffer en t m ea ni ngi n the c o nt ex t o fc hi l d po r no g r aph y be ca us e o fthe f act that col l ecto rs and dist ributor s r ar el y, i fev er, di spose of t h eir co llec tio n s. SeeU nite d State s v. Hall , 14 2 F
. 3d 988, 995 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98 ) (c iti ng “e xpert i nfo rm ati on” i n an affid av it th at “p or n og ra p h er s t en d t o m ain ta inth eir coll ection s of m aterial for long p eriods, us ua ll y at hom e”). N ev er th ele ss , th er e m u st be so m e lim ita t ion on th is pri nci ple

. W hi l e s tal eness ar gum ents have b ee n rej ecte d re l ati ve to evi dence accum ula ted m or e than on e y ear b efo re th e e x ec u tio n of th e s e a r c h w ar ra n t, U nited Sta tes v. Ne wsom , 4 02 F
. 3d 78 0, 7 83 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , i n N ew som the g ove rnm ent a l so had other, m or e r ecentev i dence of continuing cri m i nal act i vi ty to bol ste r proba b le c ause8 N o. 07

- 3708

an d fresh en the old er i nform ation. 402 F. 3d a t 7 8 3 (w he re p olic e d id n otba se th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t o n th e y ea r-o ld po r no g r aph i c im ages a l o ne b uta l so r el i ed o n the r ec en t d isc ov er y b y th e d efe n d an t’s g irlfrie n d o f a p or n og ra p h ic ta p e o f h er m in or d au gh te r); see also U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 2 F
. 3d 13 18 , 1 322-23 ( 3d Ci r . 1 99 3) ( ev i den ce de fen dan t po ss es se d c hi l d po r no g r aph y thi r te ent o fi ftee n months previ ousl y no t s tal e where supp or ted byev i dence of ad d iti ona l m a ili n gs w ithin tw o m ont hs of w arran t’s ex ecu tion). H ow ev er , th e rec or d h er e s u gg es ts th at th e im ag es co u ld have been up l oaded as m any as tw o year s bef or e the Cyber Tips w er e re cei ved, wh i ch w oul d m ean that the i nfo rm ati o n was a t l ea stf o ury ea r s o l d b y the ti m e th e g o ve r nm en t appli ed f ora w ar ra nt. U nl i ke Ne wsom , ther e i s no new e v i d e n c e t o “ fr e s h e n ” th e s t a l e e v i d e n c e . A l th o u g h we d e c l i n e t o fin d th at ev id en c e t h at is tw o t o fou r ye ar s o ld is s ta le a s a m at te r of law , cf

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ir vi ng, 45 2 F.3d 110 , 125 (2d Cir. 2006 ) (c h ild porn ograp hy tw o years old n otst ale ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ri cc ar di, 40 5 F. 3d 852, 86 0- 61 ( 1 0 t h C ir. 20 05 ) (five ye ar s); see also U nited Sta tes v. P eden , 89 1 F
. 2d 51 4, 5 18

- 19 ( 5th Ci r . 1 98 9) ( fi ndi ng th at a war r an t b as ed o n a tw o-y ea r-o ld d eliv er y fro m su sp ec te d ch ild pornogra phers and an ei ght- yea r- ol d convi cti on f or soli ci ta ti o n o fa min o r was no t st al e) , the g o ve r nm en t’ s fai lure to find o u t t he da tes in w hich the p ictures w ere up l oaded supp or ts a fi nd i ng of sta l eness i n th is c ase because i t coul d hav e eas i l y obt ai ned thi s i nfo rm ation by co nt ac tingYa ho o !

. The g o ve r nm en t co nc ede s th atthe upl o ad i nf o r m at i o n was a va i lable f o r a t l ea stt wo o fthe Yahoo! e- gr oups, i nfo rm ati on wh i ch i t c ou l d have acces sed f ol l owing Yahoo! ’ s Com pli ance Gui de f orLawN o. 07

- 3708 9 Enf o r ce m en t. The f o ury ear gap, wi th o utmor e r ec en t ev id en c e, u n d er m in es t h e fin d in g th at th er e w as p ro b ab le ca us e th atthe i m ag es woul d b e f o und dur i ngthe s ea r ch

. T h er efo re , w e fin d th at th e e v id en c e re lied on to ob ta in the w ar ra nt here was sta l e, and the w ar ra nt l acke d probabl e ca use.

B . Th e wa r r a nti s s a v e d b yt he g o o d f a i t h e x c e pt i o n. Even i n the absence o fpro babl e ca use, a w ar ra nt ca n “be save d by the go od f aith excepti on. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l s on , 408 F. 3d 366, 372 ( 7th Cir

. 2005 )

. “W hether a la w enfo rce m en t o ffice r re as on ab ly re lied u p on a su b se q u en tly i n v a l i d a t e d s e a r c h wa r r an t i s a l e g a l qu e s t i o n wh i c h we re vi ew de nov o. ” U nite d State s v . H arju , 46 6 F

. 3d 602, 60 4 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). “A n offic er ’s d ec isio n to ob ta ina w ar ra n t is pri m a f ac ie ev idence thathe o r she was ac ti ng in go od f ai th. ” O l s on , 4 08 F
. 3d at3 72 ( ci tingU nite d State s v. Koerth , 31 2 F
. 3d 86 2, 8 68 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)). Howev er, a de fen dan t m ay reb u t t h is e vid en c e, “if t h e is su in g jud ge ‘w h olly ab an d on ed h is jud icia l role ’ an d failed t o p er for m h is

‘ ne u traland detached functi on, ’ se rv i ng ‘ m er el y a s a rubbe r sta m p f orthe pol i ce’ o r . . . the affi davi t s ubm i tte d i n su pp o r t o f the wa r r a nt wa s ‘ s o l a c k i ng i n i nd i c i a o f probabl e ca use a s t o rend ero ffi ci albel i efi n i ts exi ste nce enti re l y unre aso nabl e. ’ ” Id. ( quo ting U ni t e d St at e s v. Leon , 468 U

. S. 897, 914, 923 (1984)). P rid ea u x -W en tz arg u es th at a re as o n a b le offic er w ou ld h av e k n ow n th at th e w a r ra n t a ffid av it w as lac kin g in probabl e ca use be cause the affi davi t e stabl i shes that A ge n t P au lso n w as ine x p er ien c ed in e va lu at in g c h ild10 N o. 07

- 3708 po r no g r aph y, the r e was no f o unda ti o n t o r ely o n the be ha vi o r pr o fi l e as se r ti o ns , the e vi den ce was s ta l e, a nd th e a ffid av it om i t te d m at er ial in for m at ion th at w ou ld have l ed a r eas onabl y wel l

- tr ain ed o ffi certo kno w that m or e info rm ati on was needed to est abl i sh probabl e ca use. Al th o u g h w e h a v e f o u n d th a tth e ab s e n c e o fa n y t i me el em ent r enders the e vi dence st al e, Pri deau x -W entz has f ai l ed to r ebut the pre sum pti on that Agent Paul son w as act in g i n good f aith by relying on th e w arran t. Fu rthe rm ore, he has n ot m e t the h igh stan d ard requ ired for a Fra nk s hear i ng.

1. T h e w arr an t aff ida v it estab li sh es A gen t P au lson ’s relia b ility a n d ex p ertis e in ev alu atin g chil d pornogr aph y. Pr i dea ux- W en tz mai nt ains th a tthe a ffi dav i t an d war r an t did notestabl i sh A gent Pauls on’ s r el i abi l i ty and experti se i n de sc r ibinga nd e va l ua ting p o r no g r aph i c i m ag es . To supp ort thi s point, Pri deaux-W entz re l i es on the f act th atS te nz el, the NCM EC e xp er t, di sa g r ee d wi thAge nt P au lso n ’s c l as sific at ion of so m e o f th e im ag es as ch ild pornog ra phy. Thi s a rgum ent ne ed notdetain us l ong. Altho ug h St en ze l di sa g r ee d wi thAge ntPa ul so n abo ut the cl a s s i fi c a t i o n o fs e v e r a l o fthe i mag e s , thi s di s a g r eem ent was not bas ed on Agent Paul son’ s per cei ved i nexper i en ce , b utr athe r because i t i s o fte n di ffi cul t to di st i ngui sh be tw een chil d pornog ra phy and chi l d ero ti ca. S i nce A ge nt Paul son i ncl ud ed a deta i l ed descr i pti on o fea ch i ma g e , th e ma g i s t r a t e j u d g e wa s ab l e t o ma k e hi s o wn d et er m in at ion ab ou t ho w to c las sify th e im ag es , ult im at elyN o. 07

- 3708 11

c on c lu d in g t h at ele ve n oft h e im ag es co n st itu te d ch ild p or n o gr ap h y. S e eUni t e d S t at e s v . L owe, 51 6 F

. 3d 580, 58 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ho l di ngtha t ani ss ui ngc o ur t ca n r ely o n a verbaldescr i pti on o fi m age s r atherthan the actuali m age s to de te r m i ne whethe r the r e i s pr o babl e ca us e th atthe im ages con stitut e ch il d porn ograp hy ). M or eov er, the w ar ra nt affi davi t s uffi ci entl y e stabl i shed Age ntPa ul so n’ s ex per ti se an d r el i ab i l i tyb ec au se the affid av it w as ex tr em ely d et ai led , ex p lain in g t h e c h ild pornog ra phy and chil d ero ti ca i m ag es i n the Cyber Tips, the r e l e v a nts t a t ut o r y p r o v i s i o ns , e xp e r to pi ni o ns r e g a r di ngthe b eh av i o r o fc hi l d po r no g r aph er s g en er al l y, a nd A gent Pauls on’ s e xperi ences w i th por nogr aphy- re l ate d se ar ch es . Ba se d o n the se s ta te m en ts , we fi nd tha t th e affi davi t s uffi ci entl y est abl i shes A gent Pauls on’ s e xperti se in ev al uati ng chi l d pornog ra phy. S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Watzm an , 4 86 F
. 3d 10 04, 1 008 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( co nc l udi ng th at th e affidav it suffi cient ly estab li sh ed the offi cer’s ex p er tis e w h er e t h e o ffi c e r e x p lain ed , in gre at d et ail, h is ex p erience w ith invest igating ch il d porn ograp he rs).

2 . Th e r e wa s s uf f i c i e nte v i de nc e t o l i nk t he b oiler p l a t e s t a t eme nts r egard ing ch i l d por nogr aph er s t o the speci f i c char act er i st i cs o f P rid ea u x-W en tz. P rid ea u x -W en tz ar gu es th at th er e w as n o in for m at ion in th e a ffid av i t t o in d ica te th at h e is a c olle c to r of c h ild p or n og ra p h y, on ly b o ilerp lat e s ta te m en ts ab ou t c h ild pornog ra phy col l ecto rs gen er al l y. In or der t o re l y o n p r o fi l e s , “ th e a ffi d a v i tmus tl a y a f o u n d a t i o n wh i c h s h o ws12 N o. 07

- 3708 th atthe pe r so n s ubj ec t to the s ea r chi s a m embe r o fthe cl ass . ” U nited Sta tes v. Weber, 92 3 F
. 2d 1338 , 13 45 ( 9th Cir

. 19 90) ( hold in g that the affi davi t di d not e stabl i sh probabl e ca use that the defendant w as a c h i l d m ol est er when i t was “ cl ea r tha t th e ‘ ex per t’ po r ti o n o fthe affid av it w as n otd ra fte d w ith t h e fac ts o f t h is c as e or th is par ti cul arde fen d an t i n mi nd” )

. F ur th er m o r e, “ ‘ [ r ] ambl i ng boi l er pla te re ci tat i ons desi gned to m eetal l l aw enf or cem ent ne eds’ do notpro du ce pr obab l e ca use. ” U nited Sta tes v. Zi m m e r m an , 2 77F
. 3d 42 6, 43 3 n. 4 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 2) ( quo ting Weber, 9 23 F
. 2d at 1345 )

. Pri deaux-W entz m ai ntai ns that the warr ant l acke d any i nfo rm ati on that would i n d icate th at h e h as th e c h ar ac te ris tic s o f a p ro to ty p i c al c h ild pornog ra phy c oll ecto r, and further m or e, thatthi s g ap re nd er s a ny probabl e cause deter m i nati on e nti re l y unre asonab l e. A gent Pauls on’ s a ffi davi t di d i ncl ud e g ener alst ate
m ents about col l ecto rs of chi l d pornogr aphy and t h eir usual behav i or, speci fi cal l y “ chi l d pornog ra phy col l ecto r chara cter i sti cs” gl eaned fro m hi s o w n exp er iences, as wel l a s fr om c onsul ta ti o n wi thF BIa g en ts who a r e ex p er ts in t h e fie l d . H e e x p licit ly c on c lu d ed th at “[c ]h ild po r no g r aph y c o l l ec to r s al m o sta l way s m ai nt ai n a nd p os se ss th eir m at er ial i n th e p riv ac y a n d se c u rit y of t h eir h om es or so m e oth er se c u re loc at ion w h er e it is r ea d ily avai l abl e” and that the si ze of th eirco l l ecti ons tends to increas e over tim e. Prid eau x-W en tz m a in tains, how ever, th atAg e n tP a u l s o n d i d n o tr e l y o n a n y o fP r i d ea uxW entz’ s s peci fi c charact er i sti cs in concl ud i ng tha t he fi ts the pr ofi l e o fa col l ecto r ofchild p ornogr aphy and w as ther ef or e l i kel y t o kee p pornog ra phy at hi s r esi dence.N o. 07

- 3708 13 The Fo urth Am endm ent r equi re s a“f ai r probabi l i ty” that th e evi dence w i l l be f ound o n the prem i ses , w hi c h is und er m i ned by the need to m ake i nfe re nti alst eps be tw een ge n er al ch ar ac te ris tic s an d th e sp ec ific fac ts of th e c as e. See Weber, 92 3 F .2d at13 45 (n ot in g t h at th er e w as n o p ro b ab le cause w hen, fo ll owing each i nfe re nti all eap m ade by the o ffi cer, “vi rtual ce rt aintybec am e pr obab i l i ty, wh i ch m er ge d i nto possibi l i ty, wh i ch f aded i nto chance”)

. Becaus e the wa r r a ntc o nn e c t e d P r i de a ux - W e nt z t o s e v e r al em ail a cc o unt s r es po ns ibl e f o r upl o adingo r po ss es sing chi l d pornog ra phy, we cannot saythati t r equ ire d to o m uch o f an i nfer en ti al l ea p to co nc l ude th at Pri dea uxW en tz m ight be a collector ofchild p ornogra p hy

. Th ere w as a bri dge connecti ng the genera l averm ents conta i ned i n A gent Pauls on’ s af f i davi t to P rid ea ux-W entz: j ackinpu l pit 2001

. Th e use r nam e “j ackinpu l pit 2001 ” was ti ed to Pri deaux-W entz and thi s I D w as resp on sibl e for up l oadi ng a f ai r num bero fchi l d porn ogr aphy i m age s. Furtherm or e, there w as al so an addit i onalN CM EC Cyber T ip from M icrosoft/M SN su p p orting A gen t P a u lson’s conte nti on that Pr id ea ux-W entz m i ght b e a co l l ecto r of chi l d pornog ra phy. T h u s, despit e the ge nera l, bo i l er pla te langu a g e c ont ained w ithin th e w arran t affidav it, there w er e e nough speci fi cs t o sugge st that Pri deaux-W entz m i ght b e a co l l ecto r ofchi l d pornog ra phy.

3. Th er e was a s uff i ci ent nexu s bet w een Pri deauxW en tz’s r esid en ce an d th e alleged c ri m ina l activity t hat A gentP aulso n r easo nab l y r el i ed on t he sear ch w arra n t.14 N o. 07

- 3708 Pr i dea ux- W en tz a l so m aint ains tha t the r e was no ne xus between the i l l ega l acti vi ty and the s ear ch ofhi s r esi dence be ca us e Yah o o ! s ubmi tt ed th e l as t Cyb erTi p t enmonths b e f o r e h e m o v e d t o th e N e w G l a r u s h o m e i n N o v e mber 2004
. H e conte nd s that the warr ant a pp l i cati on di d not ass er t th at he post ed any i m age s fro m hi s new re si dence. W e h av e p re vio u sly h eld th at “a fin d in g of p ro b ab le cause ‘ does not re quir e di rec t ev i dence l i nki ng a cri m e t o a par ti cul arpl ace. ’ ” Watzm an , 48 6 F

. 3d at 10 08 ( i nter nal citation om itted ). “Jud ges ‘m ay d raw reason able inferen ces from the tota lit y o f th e circum stan ces in d eterm ining w he th er prob able cau se ex ists to is s u e a w arra nt. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Su m m age, 48 1 F

. 3d 1075 , 10 78 ( 8th Cir

. 2007 ) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom ps on , 21 0 F
. 3d 855, 860 (8th Cir. 2000)). A gen t Pa ul so n r ea so nabl yr el i ed o n the s ea r chwar r an t b e c a us e the re wa s a s uffi c i e ntn e xu s b e t we e n the u pl oaded i m age s a nd Pri deaux-W en tz ’ s New Gla rus hom e. Ag e ntP a ul s o n e stab l i s he d tha tP r i de a ux - W e nt z o wne d a com pu terand subscr ibed to em ai l se rv i ces i n hi s new hom e. The warran t a ffid av it in c lu d ed subp oenae d info rm ati o n fr o m a t el ec o m m uni ca ti o ns c o m pan y, i ndicati ng that Pr i dea ux- W en tz o pen ed anInt erne t ac co unta t th e t i me he mo v e d t o Ne w Gl a r us . H i s cr e di tc a r d r e c o r ds al so show ed that he m ade r egul arm onthl y pay m ents to A m er i ca Onl i ne. A l though the nexus ce rt ai nl y would be str onge r i f Yahoo! had s ubm i tte d a Cyber T ip after Pr i dea ux- W en tz moved to hi s N ew Gl ar us ho m e, Age nt Pauls on s ti l l co uld ha ve r eas onabl y b el i eve d, base d on Pri deaux-W entz’ s co m pu terusag e a nd the f ac t that m ost chi l d pornog ra phers do not dispos e o fthei r col l ecti ons, th at it w as like ly th at illeg al po rn og ra p h ic im ag es w o u ldN o. 07

- 3708 15 b e fo u n d on P rid ea u x -W en tz ’ s c om p u te r. Se eSu m m age, 481 F
. 3d at1 07 8 ( upho l di nga s ea r cho fthe de fen d an t’s n ew h om e, al though pornogr aphic photos and vi deos w er e t ake n at hi s o l d hom e, bec au se i t was r eas onabl e t o infer that h e w ou ld m aintain th e m aterials after his m ove); see also New som , 402 F. 3d at 783 ( w here the affi davi t did not ex p lain th at ch ild p or n og ra p h e r s t en d to h old on to th eir st as he s butwe det er m i ne d that “ it w as c l ea r fr o m the co nt ex t” tha t th e l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ci al s se ek i ngthe w ar ra nt be l i eve d that th e defe nd ant was st i l l i n posse ssion of m aterials that w ere m ore tha n on e year old.)

. To c o unt erthi s po i nt, Pr i dea ux- W en tz , r ely i ngo n U nited Sta tes v. G reath o use, 297 F. Sup p . 2 d 1264, 1272 (D. Or. 2003 ), c o n t e n d s tha tth e ma g i s t r a t e f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r th a tc o mpu ter s c o mm o nly a r e r e pl a c e d in s ho r tp e r i o ds o ft i me. Altho ug h the war r an t di d no t i ndi ca te whethe r Pr i dea uxW en tz o wned the s ame c o m p ut er a t bo thr es i den ce s, the gov er nm ent i s no t r equi re d t o prove thatPri deaux-W entz own ed the sam e co m pu terbetw een r esi dences in or der to es ta b lis h p r ob ab le c au se . See U nited Sta tes v. Wiley, 475 F. 3d 908, 91 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “[ p]r obab l e ca use doe s no t re quir e di re ct e vi dence l i nki ng a cri m e t o a par ti cul ar pl ac e. Ins te ad, i ss ui ngj udg es a r e e nt i tl ed t o dra w re as o nab l e i nfer en ce s ab o ut wher e ev i den ce i s l i k ely to be f o und gi ven the nature ofthe evi dence and the type ofo ffense. ”) ( i nt erna l c i ta ti on o m i tt ed)

. Gi ve n P r i dea ux- W en tz ’ s co nne ct i o n wi tht wo Int erne t I Ds r esponsibl e f o r upl o ading an d s t o r i n gc h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y, a n d th e e x p e r tt e s t i m o ny su gg esti ng tha t he w oul d not di scar d these photos, Pri deaux-W entz has no t co nvi nced us thatA gent Pauls on did notacti n go od f ai th r el i ance on the se ar ch w ar ra nt.16 N o. 07

- 3708 C. Pri deaux-W entz w as not enti t l ed t o a Frank s hear i ng. Pri deaux-W entz ar gues that he has m et the s tandards for a Fra nk s hear i ng be cause the warr ant a ffi davi t co ntai ned om issi ons an d w as m isl ead ing . U n d er Franks , “ i fa de fen d an t c an d em on st ra te by a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vidence t h at the s i gnato ryo fthe w ar ra nt affi davi t m ade a f al se s ta tem en t ( o r o m i tt ed a m at er i alf ac t) e i th eri nt en ti o na l l y o r wi thr ec k l es s di sr egard f o r the t r uth, the n a cour t wil l co nsi der whether the c onte nt o fthe affi davi t, set ti ng asi de the f al se m ate ri al ( or i ncl ud i ng the om itt ed m ate ri al ) , is suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh pro babl e ca use. ” U nited State s v. M er ri tt, 361 F .3 d 1 00 5, 10 10 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ). In or der t o re cei ve a F r a nk s hear i ng, Pri deaux-W entz has t o show that “ ( 1) the w ar ra nt affi dav it contained a f al se sta tem ent o r om i tte d a st atem en t; ( 2) the affi ant m ade or om i tte d the sta tem ent ei ther i ntenti onal l y or reckl ess l y; an d ( 3) the s ta te m en t was mate r i alo r ne ce ssary t o the fin d in g of p ro b ab le c au se .” Id. at 1010

. Pri deaux-W entz m ai ntai ns tha t A gent Pauls on o m i tte d cer tain f acts, in c lu d in g t h at Pri deaux-W entz’ s cr ed it c ar d st at em en ts d id not conta i n charg es f or acces s to any I nter net s i tes and that he nev er c o m m uni ca te d wi tha ny o ne b y a ny medi um ab o uta nythi ngr el at ed to c hi l d po r no g r aph y . Pr i dea uxW entz al so conte nd s that there are i nconsi ste nci es betwe enAgent Pa ul so n a nd S te nz el ’ s ev alua ti o ns o fthe up l oaded pi cture s that r ai se concerns abo ut the re l i abi l i ty ofthe affi davi t g ener al l y. W e hav e a l re ady r ej ecte d the id ea thatA gent Pauls on and Ste nzel ’ s d i ffer i ng i nter preta ti ons ofthe pictures un de r mi ne d the r e l i ab i l i t y o fthe a ffi da v i t, a nd we a l s o doN o. 07

- 3708 17

no t be l i ev e th atAge ntPa ul so n’ s charac ter i za ti o n o fthe pho to s was i nt en ti o na l l y mis l ea di ng, e spe ci al l y g i ve n the so m ew h at h az y lin e b et w ee n ch ild ero tic a a n d ch ild pornog ra phy. Even i f A gent Pauls on shoul d hav e som eho w be enmor e th o r o ug h o r c ar efuli n h i s an aly si s o fthe photos, o r i f, a s w e dete rm i ned ear l i er, he s houl d have f oll ow ed- up wi thYa ho o ! t o g etmor e i nf o r m at i o n abo ut the upl oaded photos , thi s f ail ure w as, atm ost, negl i gent, w hich i s insu ffici en t to tri gger a Franks h ea rin g. See U nited St at e s v. Swans on , 2 10 F
. 3d 78 8, 79 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( r ej ec ting the defendant’s ar gum en t th at the o ffi cer s s houl d have con d uc ted m ore i n v e stigation an d i nc lud ed m ore i nform ati on with the w ar ra nt be cause thei r f ai l ure to do so w as, atm ost, negl i gent and “negl i gence i s no bas i s for conve ni ng a Franks hearing ”). There i s info rm ati on co ntai ned w i thi n the warr ant t o sugg es t that Agent Paul son re aso nabl y b el i eve d that P rid ea u x -W en tz w ou ld st ill be in p os se ss ion of ch ild pornog ra phy, and that the om i ssi ons w er e no t m ate ri alto the fi nd i ng o fpro babl e ca use. In additi on to the g ener al i nf o r m at i o n about ch i l d po r no g r aph er s co nt aine d i n the w ar ra nt, the Cyber Ti ps obt ai ned fro m A ugust 15, 2003, to J anuary28 , 20 04, i nd i c at e that Pri deauz- W entz w as co ns i st en tly upl o adingc hild po r no g r aph y a nd e ng ag i ng i n “ong oi ng conti nuous cri m i nalact i vi ty. ” See U nited Sta tes v. P less , 98 2 F
. 2d 1118 , 11 26 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( “Pass age o f ti m e i s l ess cr i ti calwh en the affid av it refer s t o f acts that ind icate o ng o ingc o nt inuo usc r i m ina la cti vi ty
. ”)

. M oreover, ther e was subst anti alev i dence l i nki ng Pri deaux-W entz to the upl oaded i m age s thro ugh hi s Inter net I Ds.18 N o. 07

- 3708 This evi dence, wh i ch i s qui te c om pel l i ng, sugg est s that th e om issi ons regard ing Prid eau x-W en tz’s cred it card sta tem ents, and the f act that t h er e was no evi dence link in gP r id e a u x -W e n t z to ot h e r child p ornogra p he rs, w ere n otn ec es sa ry to a fin d in g of p ro b ab le c au se . T h u s, w h ile A gent Pauls on’ s f ai l ure to obt ai n the dates ofthe up l oaded pictures i s probl em at ic, i t i s cl earthatthe w ar ra nt was no t so f ac i al l y de fi ci en t a s to j us ti fy a fi ndi ngtha t Age nt Pau lso n om i tte d i nfo rm ati on intenti onal l y o r re ckl ess l y. W e fi nd tha t Pr i dea ux -W en tz ha s no t sh o wn th athe w as enti tl ed to a Fra nk s hear i ng.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego i ng reas ons, we A FFIRM the de ni alo fthe m oti on t o supp re ss the e vi dence.

9- 12- 08