Opinion ID: 1311152
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probable cause in the three search warrant applications

Text: An affidavit establishes probable cause for a warrant if it `sets forth sufficient facts to establish that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of criminal activity will be found in the particular place to be searched.' United States v. Snyder, 511 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938, 946 (8th Cir.2006)), cert. denied, 554 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2947 (2008). Whether probable cause to issue a search warrant has been established is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances, and resolution of the question by an issuing judge `should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.' United States v. Hansel, 524 F.3d 841, 845 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Grant, 490 F.3d 627, 631 (8th Cir.2007)), cert. denied, 555 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 520 (2008). Brewer argues that because none of the search warrant applications contained copies or detailed descriptions of any of the images sought or already obtained, the warrants were insufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the images actually met the definition of child pornography. In support of this argument, Brewer relies on cases where defendants challenged whether particular images sought were obscene or lascivious. See, e.g., United States v. Chrobak, 289 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Syphers, 426 F.3d 461 (1st Cir. 2005); United States v. Brunette, 256 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.2001). In such cases, courts have suggested that additional information might be necessary to allow the issuing judge to make an independent determination that the images, in fact, violated the statute at issue. In this case, the search warrants were issued under Missouri law, which provides two definitions of child pornography: images where the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and [a]ny obscene material or performance depicting sexual conduct, sexual contact, or a sexual performance involving a minor. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 573.010(2). The search warrant applications stated that Brewer photographed S.B. while she performed oral sex on him, which qualifies as sexually explicit conduct. Thus, the images described in the warrant application met the statute's first definition. As a result, the cases Brewer cites are inapposite; whether the images were also obscene material is irrelevant. Additional information in the warrant applications supported the belief that child pornography would be found. S.B. provided the officers with a detailed description of the other pictures Brewer took while he sexually abused her when she was thirteen or fourteen years old. Allegations of sexual abuse of a minor are part of the totality of circumstances that courts may consider in evaluating whether probable cause existed. United States v. McCoy, 483 F.3d 862, 863 (8th Cir.2007). Moreover, Mrs. Brewer and S.B.'s boyfriend reported that they had seen numerous pictures that they described as child pornography on one of the computers. Taken together, the information included in the warrant applications was sufficient to permit the issuing judge to make an independent determination that probable cause existed to justify the issuance of the search warrants. Therefore the district court did not err in holding that the warrants were properly issued.