Opinion ID: 3019928
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Registration with Multiple E-groups

Text: Inasmuch as unchallenged portions of the search warrant affidavit demonstrated that Shields subscribed to not one, but two e-groups devoted largely to exchanging child pornography, this case is distinguishable from those on which he principally relies, Perez and Strauser, as in those cases the affidavits alleged that the putative defendant belonged only to the Candyman e- group. See Perez, 247 F. Supp. 2d at 462, 486; Strauser, 247 F. Supp. 2d at 1137. Moreover, this difference is not merely quantitative but also qualitative inasmuch as the Girls12-16 e- group’s stated purpose, which repeatedly urged members to share images and photographs of “the young female in here [sic] finest form,” was far more explicit than that of the Candyman group, compare app. at 79, ¶ 10 (Candyman proclamation), with app. at 82-83, ¶15 (Girls12-16 proclamation), and thus increased the fair probability that Shields downloaded available pornographic images such that evidence of his possession would be found. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recognized as much in Martin when it affirmed the denial of a Franks challenge a member of Girls12-16 brought, explaining that the e- group’s “welcome message unabashedly announced that its 16 essential purpose was to trade child pornography,” and that its very title “further made plain the site’s focus was on minor girls.” 426 F.3d at 75; see also id. at 77 (“At its core, the modus operandi of the Girls12-16 website was criminal, and that is determinative in this case.”). We agree with the court’s characterization of the Girls 12-16 group. Indeed, the Perez court recognized that the defendant’s absence of membership in the Girls12-16 e-group set that case apart from other Candyman cases in which Franks challenges failed: The Coplan case is distinguishable, at least to an extent, because the search warrant affidavit there also noted that the defendant was a member of, in addition to the Candyman group, another Egroup apparently centered around disturbing child pornography, entitled ‘Girls12-16.’ 247 F. Supp. 2d at 486 (emphasis added).6 Although Shields suggests that an individual such as himself simply might have “stumbl[ed] upon the sites,” never to return after discovering their content, see Appellant’s br. at 26, this possibility is remote given his registrations with these e-groups and his subsequent failure to cancel his memberships, one of which continued for more than a month and ended only when Yahoo shut down the e- group. See app. at 84, 86, ¶ ¶ 18, 24 (stating that Shields joined the Candyman e-group on January 2, 2001, and remained a member until February 6, 2001, when Yahoo terminated the group); accord United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (affirming denial of motion to suppress in child pornography prosecution and finding probable cause based on, among other things, the defendant’s continuing membership on “Lolitagurls.com” website, which he maintained until the FBI shut down the site).7 6 When it cited Coplan the Perez court was referring to a bench ruling in United States v. Coplan, No. CR 02-319 (E.D.N.Y. Aug 15, 2002). See Perez, 247 F. Supp. 2d at 485. 7 Although the Candyman and Girls 12-16 e-groups at issue had been defunct for nearly nine months by the time the FBI filed its warrant application and supporting affidavit, Shields does not raise a staleness 17