## 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. 09

- 1595 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T ED L. P APP AS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin

. No . 08 C R 52

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Judge.

A RG UE D O CT OB ER 8, 2009

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 21, 2010

B efor e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd M A NI ON a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Ted Pa p p as w as i nd i cted f orposs ess i on o fchi l d pornog ra phy i n viol ati on o f18 U. S

. C. § 2 25 2( a) ( 4) ( B)

. Pa ppas pl ea ded no t g ui l tya nd fi l ed a m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence se i zed duri ng a sea rc h o fh i s h o me, a s we l la s s t a t e men t s h e ma de du ri ngthe e xe c ut i o n o fthe s e a r c h wa r r a nt
. T he di s t ri ct co ur t g r an te d Pa ppas ’ s m o ti o n t o s up p ress. The g o ve r nm ent a pp eal s. W e r eve rs e.2 N o. 09

- 1595 I. In M ay 20 05 , l aw en for c em en t o ffice rs in C alifo rn ia executed a se ar ch w ar ra nt on M i chaelG ol ubski ’ s Am er i ca Onli ne em ai lacc ount. The se arc h r eveal ed that between Ap r i la n d Ma y 2 0 0 5 , G o l u b s k iu s e d th e e ma i ln a me “Exh i bM al e 3 9 ” t o s e nd s e v e nt e en em ai l s t o “l ongt al ks@aol .com , ” incl ud i ng el eve n that conta i ned i m age s o fchi l d pornog ra phy. Furtheri nvest i gat i on r e v e a l e d th a tth e e ma i la c c o u n t“ l o ng t a l k s @ a o l

. c o m” bel onge d to Ted Pappas, al though in J une 200 5, Pappas c h a n g e d h i s e ma i la c c o u n tt o T e d P 5 7 8 5 @ a o l

. c o m. Federal agentEl i zabe th H anson provi ded thi s info rm ati o n t o a n A ss i st an t Uni te d S ta te s Att o r ne y, a nd the two di sc us se d the pr o pr i ety o f o bt aini ng a se ar chwar r an t for P ap p as ’s ho m e. A fte r c on c lu d in g th er e w a s p ro b ab le cause to obt ai n a s ear ch w ar rant, A gent H anson prese nted a s ear ch w ar ra nt app l i cati on a nd a ni ne- page affid av it t o a m ag ist ra t e j u d ge . H an so n ’s a ffid av it i nc l uded a sum m ar y o fhe r pr o fes si o na le xpe r i en ce i nvest i gat i ng chi l d pornog ra phy. S peci fi cal l y, H anson st at ed th ats he ha d t eny ea r s’ e xpe r i en ce i nv es ti g at i ng sex ua l ex p loi tation of m in o r s a nd had cond uc ted nu m erous for ensi c exam i nati ons ofcom pu ter s in chi l d pornog ra phy i nvest i gat i ons. H anson al so described the typi cal be ha vi o r o fi ndi vi dual s who co l l ec t, pr o cur e an d dis tr ibut e ch i l d po r no g r aph y . S he fur th erde ta i l ed th e em ai l s s ent t o Papp as, st ating th at ove r a three

- w eek peri od, Pappas had re cei ved el eve n em ail s that incl ud ed chi l d pornog ra phy. H anson al so i ncl ud ed a desc ri pti on ofthe pornog ra phic i m age s of chi l dren conta i ned i n thr eeN o. 09

- 1595 3 ofthe el eve n em ai ltr ansm i ssi ons. A dd i ti onal l y, H anson n ot ed th at P ap p as co n tin u ed to m ain ta inan em ail a c c o u n t, u s i n gth e n a me T e d P 5 7 8 5 @ a o l

. c o m. I n No v e mbe r 2 0 0 6 , b a s e d o n the sear chwa r r a nta ppli cati on a nd H anson’ s a ffi davi t, a federa lm agi str ate j ud ge i ssued a sea rch w ar ra nt f orPappas’ s r esi dence. A ccor ding to the g ove rnm ent, duri ng the s ea rch, Pappas spoke wit h a ge nts a nd adm i tte d he used the scr een nam e “ l ongt al ks” to tr ade adultpor n ography in chat ro om s and v i a em ai l

. H e al so adm i tte d r ecei vi ng im ag es an d v i deo s o fc hi l dr ene ng ag ed ins ex ua l l y e xpl i ci t co ndu ct, but cl aim ed he ha d dele ted tho se i m age s. A se ar ch of Papp as’ s com pu ter hard dri ve, how eve r, u ncove re d i m age s o fchi l d po rn ography. A gents al so disc ove re d th ati m ages ofc hi l d po r no g r aph y ha d b ee n s av ed o n a fl oppy dis k b ut were l ate r del ete d; the g ove rnm ent was abl e t o re cove r the i m age s. B as ed on th e e vid en c e re c ov e r e d d u rin g t h e s ea rc h, a gr and j ury i nd i cte d P appas on tw o counts ofposs ess i on o fc 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 2 52( a) ( 4 ) ( B)

. P a pp a s p l e a de d n o tg ui l t y a nd fi l e d a m oti o n t o s uppr es s th e ev i den ce s ei ze d dur i ngthe sea rch and the s tat em ents he m ade duri ng the exe c u tio n ofth e w ar ra nt. A m agi str ate j ud ge re com m ended gran ting th e m otion to su p p ress, and the d istri ct cou rt ad op te d th at rec om m en d at ion an d su p p re ss ed th e e viden ce s ei ze d a nd Pa ppas ’ s st at ement s. The g o ve r nm en t appeal s.4 N o. 09

- 1595

Because the governm ent do es n o t ar gue that ther e was 1 p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s u p p o r tth e i s s u a n c e o fth e s e a r c h wa r r a n t, we need not add res s that quest ion; ins tead our f ocus i s on w hether a r ea s onabl e offi c er c oul d bel i eve pro babl e c aus e s uppor t ed the issua nc e of the w arr an t. II. On app eal, the gov er nm ent a rgues that whil e it m ay be qu es ti o nabl e whethe r pr o babl e ca us e su ppo r te d the i ss ua nc e o fthe s ea r chwarrant, the e vi den ce s ei ze d a nd Papp as’ s s tat em ents ar e no nethel ess adm i ssibl e under U nited S t at e s v. Le on , 4 68 U. S

. 8 97( 19 84 )

. In Le on , the 1 S upr eme Co ur t ar ti cul at ed th e g o o d f ai the xc ept i o n t o the ex c lu sio n ar y ru le, h old in g t h at ev id en c e o b ta in ed in v i o l a t i o n o fthe Fo ur th Am e nd men ti s n o ne the l e s s a dm iss ible if th e o ffice r w h o c on d u c te d th e s ea rc h ac te d in go od fa ith r elia n c e o n a se ar c h w ar ra n t. Id. at92 2- 23. “That [ an] o ffi cer [ ] o b tained a w ar ra nt i s pri m a f aci e e vi dence o fg o o d f a i th. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. E lst, 57 9 F

. 3d 740, 74 4 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). A d efe n d an t m a y r e b u t t h e p rim a fa c ie evi dence ofgo od f ai th bypr es en tinge vi d en ce to e st ab l i shtha t: ( 1) the i ss ui ngj udg e whol l y a bandone d hi s j udi ci alr o l e an d f ai l ed to pe r f o r m hi s ne ut r ala nd de ta ch ed func ti o n, ser vi ngme r e l y a s a r ub b e r s t a mp f o r the p o l i c e; ( 2) th e a ffi davi t s upp or ti ng the warra nt was so l ac k i ngi n i nd i c i a o fp r o b ab l e c a us e a s t o r e nder offi ci al bel i ef i n i ts exi ste nce enti re l y un re aso nabl e; or (3) th e is su in g jud ge w as m isle d by info rm at ion in an affid av it th at th e a ffian t k n e w w as fals e o r w ou ldN o. 09

- 1595 5

On appeal, Pa ppas doe s no tc ont en d thatthe i s s ui ng j udge 2 ab an d on ed his jud icial ro le or w as m isled b y the a ffid av it. ha v e kno wn wa s f a l s e e xc e ptf o r h i s r e c k l e ss di sr eg ar d o fthe t r uth. Id. ( intern al quo tations and citations om itted ). I n thi s c a s e , P a pp as a r g ue s , a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur th e l d, th atthe a ffi dav i t su ppo r tingthe warra ntwas s o l ac k i ng inp ro b ab le c au se th at th e o ffice rs co u ld n otr e l y u p o n it ingoo d fait h

. W e d isa gr ee . H er e, th e a ffid av it c lea rly 2 docum ented e vi dence es tabl i shi ng tha t a t l eas t e l eve n im ages of child p ornogra p hy had been sent to Pap p as’s em ai lacc ount a nd ve ri fyi ng tha t Pappa s c onti nued to m ai ntai n em ai l acces s ( thus i nd i cating continu ed access to a co m pu tero n w hi ch chi l d pornog raph y c oul d be st o r ed ). A ddi ti o na l l y, pr i o r t o s ee k i nga war r an t, Age nt H anson consul ted with an A ssi sta nt U ni ted S tat es A ttorney. Consul ti ng “with the pr ose cutorpri orto applying f or[ a] se ar c h w ar ra nt pro vi des addit i onal evi dence of[ that offi cer ’ s] obj ecti ve goo d fa i th. ” U nited St at e s v. Bynum , 2 9 3 F .3d 19 2, 19 8 (4 th C ir. 20 02 ). See al s o Unit e d S t at es v. Johns on , 78 F. 3d 1258, 1264 (8th C ir. 1996 ) ( sta ti ng tha t obtaini ng advi ce of a co unty at torney i s a n i nd i cati on that a n o ffi cer ’ s r el i ance o n a s ear ch w ar ra n t w as ob j ec tiv ely rea so n ab l e ) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Brown, 95 1 F

. 2d 999, 10 05 ( 9th Ci r. 19 91) ( noti ng “a n offi cer ’ s co nsul tat i on with a gov er nm ent a tto rneyi s o f si g ni fi ca nti m po r ta nc e to a fi ndi ngo fg o o d f ai th

. . . [ an d i t i s] o fe ve n g reat eri m po r ta nc e wher e, a s he r e, a po i nt o fl a w r e l a t i n gt o th e s c o p e o fa F o u r th Ame ndm en t6 N o. 09

- 1595

se ar cha nd s ei zu r e was not yet sett l ed atthe t i m e th e w ar ra n t is su ed ”); U nited Sta tes v. Ta xa ch er, 902 F. 2d 867, 87 2 ( 11th Cir

. 19 90) (e xplaini ng tha t o ffi cer ’ s co nsul tat i on “w i th the l oca ldi str i ct a tto rneybefor e s ee king the s ear ch w arra n t, and then subm i t[ ti ng] the m att erto a neutra l m agistrate” w as “ind icative of obj ective good f aith”). I n r esp o ns e, Pa ppas c l ai m s th atthe s ea r chwar r an t appli cati on was utte rl y l acking in probabl e ca use be cause ther e i s no evi dence that Papp as sol i ci ted chi l d pornog ra p hy or th at he even read th e em ail m essa g e s . R a th er, P ap p as m ain ta i n s t h at be c au se h e a lso rec eiv ed ad u lt p or n og ra p h y fro m G o l u b s k i , t h e o n l y re as on ab le i nfe re n c e fl owing fro m the f acts i s that the em ai l s t o hi m wer e “a dve r ti se m en ts ” tha t d o no t i ndi ca te tha t he knowingl y pos ses sed chi l d pornog ra phy. That m ay be on e in fer en c e. B u t a n o f f i c er co u ld als o re as on ab ly be l i ev e t hat th e numbero fe m ai lmess ag es c o nt aini ng ch i l d po r no g r aph y s en t to Pa ppas , a nd the r i ski nhe r en t i n sendi ng ev en o ne i m age o fchi l d pornog ra phy to anyo ne o therthan a w illful re ci pie nt, was suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh p ro b abl e ca use forthe cri m e o fkno w i ng posses si on o fchi l d pornog ra phy

. S i m i l ar l y, wh i l e Pappas m aint ains tha t th e f ac t that he c ha ng ed hi s emai la cc o unt dem onst ra tes that he did not w ant t o re cei ve chi l d pornog

ra phy, equal l y pl ausibl e i s the co ncl usi on that Pappas changed h is e m ai lacc ount t o avo i d detecti on. In f act, g i ve n tha t Pa ppas wai te d ne ar l y thr ee m ont hs a fte r he re c eiv ed th e firs t e m ail fro m G olu b sk i to c h an ge h is e m ail ad d re ss , an d th at h e rec eiv ed n u m er ou s im ag es of ch ild po r n o g r a p h y fr o m G o l u b s k i, th e l a t t e r i n fe r e n c e s e e ms m uch m or e l i kel y.N o. 09

- 1595 7

T he g ov ern m en t also cites ou r no np rece d en tial d ecis i o n in 3 Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Do an , 2 4 5 F ed . A p p x. 5 5 0 , 55 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ), wher ein thi s c our tappl i ed the goo d f ai th e xc ept i on t o a w arrantbased on chil d p ornograp hy trans m it ted s eventeen m on ths p rior to the issuan ce of the w arr an t. Papp as furtherar gues that the sea rch w ar ra nt appli cati o n wa s c o mpl e t e l y l a c k i ngi n i nd i c i a o fp r o b ab l e cause because o fthe ei ghtee n-m onth del ay between the tr ansm i ss i o n o fthe e m ai l s ( m i d- 20 05 ) a nd the i ss ua nc e o fthe sea rch w ar ra nt ( l ate 20 06)

. W hi l e the r ecencyof i nfo rm ati o n c o nt aine d i n a s ea r chwar r ant appl i ca ti o n i s o ne fac to r b ea rin g on th e q u es tio n of p ro b ab le c au se , U nited St at e s v. Watzm an , 486 F.3d 100 4, 1008 (7th Cir. 2007), th ere is n o b rig h t lin e fo r w h e n info rm at ion is st ale

. U nited State s v. P ri deaux-Wentz , 543 F.3d 954 , 958 (7th C ir. 2008). I nd eed, we re centl y hel d that whil e four- yea r-ol d tra nsmi s s i o ns o fc hi l d p o r no g r aph y we r e t o o s t a l e t o p r o v i de probabl e ca use, o ffi cer s co uld none thel ess r ely i n go od f ai th o n a s ear ch w ar ra nt i ssued bya m agi str ate j ud ge b as ed o n t h os e t ra n sm iss ion s. P ri deaux-Wentz , 54 3 F

. 3d at 958- 59. Sim ilar ly, in th is cas e, th e offic e r s rea so n ab ly

3 coul d have r el i ed on the se ar ch w ar ra nt thatwas base d on ch il d porn ograp hy sent eighteen m ont hs earli er. P ap p as als o a rg u es th at th e o ffice rs co u ld n otrea so n ab ly re l y on the w ar ra nt because the w ar ra nt ap pli cati on i ncl ud ed b oi l er pla te l anguage co ncer ni ng the prac ti ces of c o l l e c t o r s o fc hi l d p o r no g r a ph y b utdi d n oti nc l ud e an y e vid en c e P a p p a s f it th at p ro file. In s u p p or t o f h is posi ti on, Pappas r el i es on thi s cou rt ’ s r ecentdeci si on8 N o. 09

- 1595 inPrideaux-Wentz , 54 3 F

. 3d 95 4. I n P ri deaux-Wentz , the defe nd ant a rgued that the se ar ch w ar ra nt affi dav it w as defe cti ve because it onl y incl ud ed boi l er pla te sta tem ents ab o u tc h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y c o l l e c t o r s g e n e r a l l y a n d c o mple tel y “ l acke d any i nfo rm ati on th at w oul d i nd i cate th at h e h as th e c h ar ac te ris tic s o f a p ro to ty p ica l ch ild porno graphy co l l ecto r, and further m or e, thatthi s g ap re nd er s a ny p robabl e cause d ete rm i nati on enti re l y unre as o nab l e. ” Id. a t 96 0. W e no te d i n P ri deaux-Wentz thatan “a ffi dav i t m us t l aya fou nd at i o n whi chs ho ws tha t th e person s u b j ec t t o the s ear ch i s a m em bero fthe cl ass . ” Id. (in te rn al q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ). H ow ev er , w e t h en h eld that “beca use the warra nt co nnected Pri d eaux - W entz to seve ra lem ai lacc ounts responsibl e foruplo adingo r posse ssing chi l d pornog ra p h y,” i t di d not t ake “m uch of an i nfe re nti all eap to co nclud e that Pr i deaux-W entz m i ght b e a c olle c toro fchi l d pornog ra phy. ” Id. at96 1. Acco r di ng l y, w e con cl ude d tha t “[ t] he r e was s uffi ci en t ev i den ce t o l i nkthe b oil er pl at e st at ement s r eg ar di ng c hi l d pornog ra phers to the s peci fi c char acte ri sti cs o f Pri deaux-W entz. ” Id. at96 0. Pa ppas ’ s r el i an ce o n P ri deaux-Wentz i s m i spl aced f or se ve ra l rea so n s. Firs t, h e re ad s t oo m u c h int o th at d ec isi on. W hi l e P ri deaux-Wentz expl ai ned that a s ear ch w ar ra nt affi davi t m ust l ay a foundati on s how i ng tha t the tar get of the sea rch i s a m em ber of th e c l ass i denti fi ed i n the w ar ra nt, ther e i s no m ag ic “pro fi l e” of c h ild porno gr aphy “co l l ecto rs ” that m ust be at tes ted to i n a s ear ch w ar ra nt affi davi t. In fac t, the m oni ker“co l l ector ” m er el y r eco gni zes thatexper ts i n the fi el d have f ound that be cause chi l d pornog ra phy i s di ffi cul t t oN o. 09

- 1595 9

co m e by, tho se r ec ei ving the mate r i alo fte n k ee p the i m a g e s f o r y e a r s . T h e r e i s n o th i n ge s p e c i a l l y u ni que about i nd i vi du al s who ar e “co l l ecto rs ” ofchi l d pornog ra p h y; ra th er , i t is th e n at u re o fc h i l d p or n og ra p h y, i.e., i ts i l l ega l i ty and the di ffi cul ty procur i ng i t, that cause s re ci pie nts to beco m e “ col l ecto rs . ” Se eWatzm an , 48 6 F

. 3d at 10 08 (n ot in g t h at th e a ge n t e x p lain ed th at “in d ivid u als w h o vie w c h ild p or n og ra p h y typ ica lly ‘m ain ta i n t h eir c o l l e c t i o n s f o r ma ny y e a r s ’ a n d ‘ k e e p a n d c o l l e c ti t e ms conta i ni ng chi l d pornog ra phy ove r l ong peri ods o f ti m e’ ”)

. Thus, as P ri d eau x-Wentz exp lai ne d , w he re evi dence i nd i cates that a n i nd i vi du alhas up l oaded or p ossess ed m ultiple p ieces of ch il d por n o grap hy , there i s e n ou gh o f a connect i on t o the “ col l ecto r” pro fi l e t o j usti fy inc l ud i ng the c hi l d po r nogr aphy col l ecto r boi l er pla te i n a s ear ch w ar ra nt affi davi t. S i m i l ar l y, her e, b ec au se P ap p as rec eiv ed ele ve n em ails co n t ain in g c h ild po r no g r aph y , i nc l u s i o n o ft h e c h i l d

- p o r n o g r aph y b o i l e r pl a t e wa s j us t i fi e d. Pa ppas ’ s r el i an ce o n P ri deaux-Wentz i s a lso m i spl aced be ca us e w e de ci ded th atc as e afte r the s ea r chwar r an t inth is c as e w as iss u ed . Th u s, Pri de aux- We ntz c oul d not ha ve called into q u e s t ion the good f aith of the offi cers in vo lve d in t h e s ea rc h of P ap p as ’s re s i d e n c e. See U nited Sta tes v. A da m es , 5 6 F

. 3d 73 7, 747( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( ho l di ng th at“ th e o ffi ce r s c o ul d no t ha ve kno wn th atthe war r an t was i nv al i d a t th e ti m e i t was e xe cut ed be ca us e [ th e S upr eme Co ur t pr ec ede ntr el i ed up on b y the de fen dan t to i nval i date the se ar ch w ar ra nt] w as n ot deci ded unti lm or e than a y earl ate r” )

. Final l y, P ri deaux-Wentz hel d that whil e pr obab l e ca use was l acking, the ev idence10 N o. 09

- 1595 sei zed was nonethel ess ad m issibl e under the Le on go od f ai the xc ept i o n t o the e xc l us i o na r y r ul e. S i m i l ar l y, the goo d fa i th exce pti on a pp l i es here and sav es fro m excl usi on the ev i dence di sco ver ed duri ng the se ar ch of Pa ppas ’ s ho m e an d the s ta te m en ts he made dur i ngthe executi on o fthe sea rch w ar ra nt.

III

. A m ag i st r at e j ud g e i ss ue d a s ea r chwar r an t au th or izin g t h e s ea rc h of P ap p as ’s re sid en c e. E ve n if probabl e ca use di d no t su p p or t i ssuance ofthi s warr ant, A gent H anson dem onst ra ted a pri m a fa ci e ca se ofgo od f ai th byo btaini ng a w arra n t in the fi rs t instance
. H er eff or ts to consul t with an A ssi sta nt U ni ted Stat es A tto rney pri orto se eking a w ar ra nt furtherdem onst ra te her g o o d f ai th

. Al th o ug h the r e was s o m e del aybetw ee n the tr a n s mi s s i o n o f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y t o P a p p a s a n d t he i s s ua nc e o f the wa r r a nt, the de l a y wa s no t s o g r e a t a s t o overcom e the pres um p tion of good f aith. N or w as th ere anythi ng i m perm i ssibl e i n i ncl ud i ng i nfo rm ati on rel ate d to the pr acti ces ofchi l d pornog ra phy “col l ecto rs , ” g i ven th atnumer o us i m ag es o fc hi l d p or no g r aph y wer e se nt to P ap p as . A c c or d in gly , th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in gr anti ng Pappas’ s m oti on t o supp re ss. W e R EV ERSE
.

1- 21- 10