Opinion ID: 792174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Corrected Affidavit Supports Probable Cause

Text: 34 We conclude that the affidavit, after being corrected for the error, still supports a probable-cause finding and that Judge Wexler did not err in denying the suppression motion. 5 As such, we need not reach the question of whether the misstatements were made knowingly or recklessly. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674. 35 The corrected affidavit provided the magistrate judge with facts sufficient for her to conclude that the overriding, if not the sole, purpose of the girls12-16 e-group was illicit (to facilitate the receipt and distribution of child pornography); that an e-mail address of a girls12-16 member was linked to Martin's house; that collectors of child pornography overwhelmingly use the internet and computers to distribute and hoard this illegal pornographic material; and that, accordingly, there was a fair probability, given the totality of the circumstances and common sense, Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, that evidence of a crime would be found at Martin's home because membership in the e-group reasonably implied use of the website. 36 First, the girls12-16's welcome message unabashedly announced that its essential purpose was to trade child pornography. All members were greeted with the explicit introduction that [t]his group is for all those ho [sic] appreciate the young female in here [sic] finest form. Watching her develop and grow is like poetry in motion [sic], to an age where she takes an interest in the joys and pleasures of sex. It invited members to share information about their current model for photographers, where to meet girls, the best way to chat them up, and [g]irls you would like to share with others. And it made clear that members could [p]ost videos and photographs of girls. See United States v. Shields, No. 4:CR-01-0384, 2004 WL 832937, at  (M.D.Pa. Apr. 14, 2004) ([T]he purpose of the `Candyman' and `Girls 12-16' websites clearly was to share child pornography.); United States v. Coplan, No. CR 02-319 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2002) (oral decision) (same). The title of the e-group, girls12-16, further made plain that the site's focus was on minor girls. 37 Second, the affidavit contained an extensive background discussion of the modus operandi of those who use computers for collecting and distributing child pornography, including their reliance on e-groups, e-mail, bulletin boards, file transfers, and online storage. See United States v. Bailey, 272 F.Supp.2d 822, 838 (D.Neb.2003). Third, it described the characteristics and proclivities of child-pornography collectors, specifically how they tend to collect such material, store it, and rarely destroy or discard it. See id.; see also United States v. Harvey, 2 F.3d 1318, 1322-23 (3d Cir.1993) (gathering cases that state collectors of child pornography rarely discard their collections). Fourth, girls12-16's illicit purpose could be inferred from the website's technological features (files, messages, polls, e-mail, links, polls, chat, and membership lists) that facilitated the trading of child pornography. See Froman, 355 F.3d at 890 & n. 5. Fifth, the agent confirmed that the material uploaded and downloaded on the girls12-16 site included child pornography and child erotica, and that this material was available to all members. See Shields, 2004 WL 832937, at . Sixth, the affidavit established a nexus between the member and the website: The girls12-16 member who utilized the e-mail address Joeym@optonline.net lived at the searched house. See Bailey, 272 F.Supp.2d at 838. Seventh, Joeym@optonline.net joined girls12-16 voluntarily and never cancelled his membership. See Froman, 355 F.3d at 890-91. 38 Based on the foregoing, we have no difficulty concluding that the corrected affidavit established probable cause. The affidavit included evidence that an occupant of Martin's house, Joeym@optonline.net, was a member of the girls12-16 e-group, whose raison d'être, or primary reason for existence, was the trading and collection of child pornography — a wholly illegal endeavor. It is common sense that an individual who joins such a site would more than likely download and possess such material. See id. (finding it to be common sense that one who voluntarily joins a child-pornography group and remains a member of the group . . . without cancelling his subscription . . . would download such pornography from the website and have it in his possession); Bailey, 272 F.Supp.2d at 824-25 ([K]nowingly becoming a computer subscriber to a specialized internet site that frequently, obviously, unquestionably and sometimes automatically distributes electronic images of child pornography to other computer subscribers alone establishes probable cause for a search of the target subscriber's computer.); see also United States v. Coye, No. 02-CR-732, 2004 WL 1743945, at  (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2004). And this conclusion is supported by the majority of courts that have found that corrected Candyman affidavits set forth probable cause. See, e.g., Schmidt, 373 F.3d at 103-04; Froman, 355 F.3d at 890-91; Coye, 2004 WL 1743945, at ; Shields, 2004 WL 832937, at -; Bailey, 272 F.Supp.2d at 824-25, 838-39; Coreas, 259 F.Supp.2d at 220-21; Coplan, No. CR 02-319. 39 We believe that our conclusion adequately balances the need for law enforcement to have a certain amount of latitude in conducting criminal investigations with the constitutional guarantees of free association and protection against unlawful searches. It does not grant the government an unchecked license to search citizens' homes simply because they are members of an offensive or disreputable group. Rather, it recognizes that, depending on the totality of the evidence proffered in the affidavit, a substantial likelihood of criminal activity may exist if an individual is a member of an internet e-group whose purpose is unlawful. A contrary conclusion would unnecessarily hamper government investigations by fostering too restrictive a view of probable cause, and would conflict with the pragmatic, common-sense probable-cause analysis that the Supreme Court requires. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317. 40 Ignoring the specific details of the affidavit and its fair inferences, Martin argues that the district court merely speculat[ed] that child pornography was being delivered and that probable cause is lacking because the corrected affidavit does not specify that he downloaded this illegal material. While the affidavit does not explicitly state that Martin accessed child pornography, it ties the girls12-16 website to an individual living in Martin's home, and states child pornography was available to all who joined and was being distributed to some of the group's members, as shown by the agent's receipt of e-mails containing illegal child pornography and his downloading other such material from the website. 41 The defect in Martin's argument is that he conflates evidence of probable cause to sustain a warrant with proof of a prima facie case. As noted earlier, probable cause does not require a prima facie showing that Martin possessed child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). See Gates, 462 U.S. at 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Rather, because probable cause is a common-sense test, the corrected affidavit need only establish that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Id. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (emphasis added). The inquiry turns on an assessment of probabilities and inferences, not on proof of specific criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Simply put, probable cause is a relaxed standard, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 958, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), not a legal determination of guilt or liability, see Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 121, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975) (noting lesser consequences of probable cause determination); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) (indicating that probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify . . . conviction, but more than bare suspicion (internal quotation marks omitted)). The redacted affidavit in this case plainly meets this common-sense threshold. 6 42 Although Martin contends that there were legal, as well as illegal, uses for the site, he offers no evidence to support that claim. Martin does not argue, for example, that he, or anyone else, used the e-group as a forum for debating the legalization of child pornography, or simply discussing child pornography or pedophilia. Cf. United States v. Fama, 758 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir.1985) (The fact that an innocent explanation may be consistent with the facts alleged, however, does not negate probable cause.). Instead, he maintains that viewing child pornography on the internet is legal, but this is an open question. See, e.g., United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1205 (10th Cir.2002) (finding defendant knowingly possessed child pornography, where it was saved in his computer's cache); United States v. Perez, 247 F.Supp.2d 459, 484 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (noting that question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) reaches mere internet `browsing' is something of an open question). See generally Ty E. Howard, Don't Cache Out Your Case: Prosecuting Child Pornography Possession Laws Based on Images Located in Temporary Internet Files, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1227 (2004). There is no need to decide this question, however. Even if viewing were legal, that would not defeat probable cause because it is common sense that, in the context of this website and the corrected affidavit, those who view are likely to download and store child pornography. The concern that a person who innocently joins an organization with a mixed purpose might be subjected to an unnecessary and unconstitutional search is not present here because the girls12-16 e-group and its technological features served primarily as a means for effecting illegal activity. At its core, the modus operandi of the girls12-16 website was criminal, and that is determinative in this case. 43 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Martin's suppression motion.