Opinion ID: 172869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The District Court's Analysis and Ruling

Text: The district judge rejected defendant's argument that probable cause was lacking because the information reflected in the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant was stale. The judge noted that the question whether the information was stale depends on the nature of the criminal activity, the length of the activity, and the nature of the property to be seized. [4] The judge also noted that our court has recognized that collectors of child pornography are likely to hoard the materials. [5] The judge found that the recorded telephone call of October 2006, seventeen days before issuance of the warrant, indicated that defendant's interest in child pornography still existed. As for the showing of probable cause that the evidence would be found in the apartment of Mr. Potts, direct evidence or personal knowledge that the contraband is located there is not required by our cases. [6] The magistrate judge reasonably inferred that defendant likely would have materials at his residence for security. Agent Lane knew that defendant owned a personal computer, and defendant had mentioned in the recorded telephone call that it can take hours to download some of the materials from the internet, which would not be feasible at the elementary schools where he was employed. Also, defendant had printed images that he displayed in a large notebook, and it was also reasonable to infer that he would not keep that at the schools where he was employed. The totality of this information was sufficient, the judge concluded, to support a common sense decision that evidence of the crimes charged likely would be found at the residence. The district judge went on to opine that the search could be sustained on the alternative ground of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule first articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Leon set out four instances in which its exception to the exclusionary rule would not be applicable, of which Mr. Potts had invoked only one, arguing that the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that it would be unreasonable for the officer to rely on it. See id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell J., concurring in part)). Mr. Potts relied on the evidence he adduced at the hearing on his motion to suppress, evidence that tended to show that Agent Lane had failed to investigate the complaining witness's account in several respects. The district judge found that Agent Lane had corroborated significant portions of the witness's account and had formed a reasonable opinion that the witness was credible based on her interviews with the witness and the level of cooperation the witness had displayed. Further corroboration was obtained in the recorded telephone call between the witness and Mr. Potts. The warrant contained sufficient indicia of probable cause, and Agent Lane had acted reasonably, the judge concluded. The district judge also rejected Mr. Potts's challenge to the scope of the search warrant. The challenge Mr. Potts made in his motion to suppress, which he also pursues in this appeal, was focused on the language in the Addendum to the search warrant, which we have quoted supra, authorizing the officers to open or cursorily read the first few pages of such files to determine their contents. The district judge concluded that the warrant did not authorize the search and seizure of evidence for which there was no probable cause. 559 F.Supp.2d at 1176.