Opinion ID: 622724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Vucich's Second Affidavit and the Federal Warrant

Text: Vucich then swore out an affidavit to procure a second, federal search warrant that would authorize him to search the computers and hard drives seized. He added to his affidavit the following facts: (1) that Danielle and Matthew Clark stated that Michele Clark installed LimeWire on their computer and was the only individual in their home to use that program; and (2) that Michele Clark had given to his stepfather a different computer that he had used while living with them. The federal warrant was granted. Police analyzed the computer and hard drives and recovered incriminating evidence of child pornography.
Michele Clark requested a Franks hearing to contest the veracity of Vucich's affidavits. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). [2] Claiming that Vucich omitted material information from his affidavits, he moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his computer and hard drives because police lacked probable cause to search for child pornography. In particular, he argued that Vucich improperly connected his alleged sexual assault on his niece to possession of child pornography through boilerplate language, lacking any specific basis for suspecting him of possession. He also claimed that the alleged sexual assault of his niece provided an insufficient nexus between his brother's home and his address to authorize the police to search the latter. The district court granted his request for a Franks hearing and found no material omissions. It further held that, read including the allegedly omitted information, Vucich's affidavits fostered probable cause to search for evidence that Michele Clark committed sexual assault on a minor child or possessed child pornography, including at his residence. The district court, therefore, denied Michele Clark's motion to suppress. Michele Clark entered a contingent guilty plea to possession of child pornography, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. He now appeals.