Opinion ID: 2572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Falso's Criminal Proceedings

Text: Falso was indicted on June 16, 2005 for traveling with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(b), (f) & 2246 (Counts 1-2); production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (Counts 3-10); receiving child pornography via the internet in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), (B) & 2256 (Counts 11-233); transporting and shipping child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) & 2256 (Counts 234-241); and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (Count 242). The indictment also alleged that Falso had a prior conviction relating to the sexual exploitation of children, and sexual abuse involving a minor, which invoked the penalty provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(b)(1), (b)(2) and 2251. Falso subsequently moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and computer on the ground that probable cause for the search was lacking. Specifically, Falso claimed that the presence of his e-mail address on the cpfreedom.com website was an insufficient basis for probable cause in the absence of any allegations in the affidavit that Falso was a member or subscriber to the website, or that the overriding purpose of the website was the trading of child pornography. Falso also sought a Franks hearing, [4] claiming that certain of the information in the affidavit was designed to mislead the court into believing that Falso was actually a member of or subscriber to the cpfreedom website, and that the government misleadingly failed to disclose that Falso's e-mail address could have appeared on the cpfreedom.com website for innocent reasons, such as being part of a spam mailing list. In support, Falso submitted an affidavit from a data forensics expert, Robert DeCicco (DeCicco). That affidavit explained that there is a difference between visiting a website, and become [sic] a member and/or subscriber to the site; the latter normally involves the assignment of a password and user name conditioned on the payment of a fee or the provision of specific personal information. DeCicco's affidavit further explained that internet service providers [such as Yahoo] do not maintain records identifying the websites visited by their customers and, thus, a review of service provider records would not disclose whether a customer was a subscriber or member of a particular website. Moreover, his affidavit stated that [i]t is common practice for websites to obtain lists of e-mail addresses from other sources ... and to send unsolicited e-mail to such addresses. Thus, DeCicco concluded, the fact that [Falso's] e-mail address appeared on the [cpfreedom.com] website does not mean that he contacted or attempted to contact that site. On February 24, 2006, the district court issued an oral ruling denying Falso's motions, holding that: (1) Falso was not entitled to a Franks hearing; (2) probable cause for the search existed; and (3) even if there was an insufficient basis for probable cause, suppression of the evidence was not warranted because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. More specifically, in response to Falso's Franks claim, the court found that Agent Lyons did not make any false or misleading statements, and explained that, [s]ignificantly, the court was not misled by Agent Lyons. The court explained that it had never understood Agent Lyons to be saying that defendant had actually subscribed to the CP Freedom website; rather, it understood the affidavit to say that there was reason to believe Falso had either gained or attempted to gain access to the site. The district court then explained its basis for concluding that probable cause existed: First, there was the information concerning the background of persons dealing in child pornography, including the fact that persons who collect child pornography have a sexual attraction to children. Second, there was information that the web site, CP Freedom, advertised that it contained child pornography, actually had some images of child pornography available on it free of charge and advertised that it had additional images of child pornography upon payment of a fee. Third, the FBI determined that the material associated with the website is hardcore child pornography. Fourth, there was evidence that [Falso] had access or attempted to access the CP Freedom web site. Fifth, there was information [that Falso] actually engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with a minor in the past. Thus, the court found: Together, this information set forth a reasonable probability that [Falso] had a sexual attraction to minors and that he was undertaking efforts to appeal to his sexual attraction to minors by viewing pictures of child pornography via the internet. In light of the proclivity of such persons to store images of child pornography on their computer and otherwise maintain images of child pornography, there was a reasonable probability that child pornography would be found in the defendant's home, including on his computer. The district court also considered and rejected Falso's claim that the presence of his email address on the website might simply have been the product of a spam mailing list. While recognizing the proliferation of spam, the court explained that Agent Lyons's affidavit suggested something morenamely, that it appear[ed] that someone with [Falso's] e-mail address... either gained access or attempted to gain access to the website. Additionally, the district court measured Falso's case against our precedents in Martin and Coreas (discussed infra ). After identifying what it perceived to be similarities between those cases and Falso's case, [5] the court recognized that, unlike in Martin and Coreas, there was no evidence that Falso was a member of a child-pornography website. The court explained, however, that there is information... that [Falso] accessed or attempted to access the site and that free child pornography was available to anyone who accessed the site. Also contributing to probable cause, the court continued, was: [I]nformation in this case that was not available in Martin or [ Coreas ]. That information is defendant's prior criminal history involving sexual contact with a seven year old  conduct that is highly relevant to the criminal activity at issue here. The character provided by the FBI indicates that the majority of individuals who collect child pornography have a sexual attraction to them. [sic] In light of [Falso's] known sexual attraction to minors and his having accessed or gained access to a site offering child pornography, there's a reasonable probability that he would collect child pornography. Finally, the district court held that even if there had been an insufficient basis for finding probable cause, suppression of the evidence was not warranted because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. In this regard, the court explained that it found no statements in the affidavit to be false or in reckless disregard for the truth, and that the warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render [the executing officers'] belief in the existence of probable cause entirely unreasonable. After the district court denied Falso's motions, he pled guilty to all 242 counts in the indictment. Falso specifically reserved the right to appeal from the district court's denial of his motions to suppress. Falso also objected to the district court's use of his prior state conviction for Endangering the Welfare of a Child as a basis for enhancing the statutory minimum and maximum penalties. On June 2, 2006, the district court sentenced Falso principally to 30 years' imprisonment.