Opinion ID: 2587611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The denial of appellant's motion to suppress and the adequacy of the search warrants permitting the seizure of evidence from his computer

Text: Weber maintains that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress the evidence of child pornography seized from his computer. He contends that two search warrants authorizing the computer search were constitutionally defective because they were based on unsupported and misleading probable cause statements. At the very least, Weber maintains that the district court was required to hold a hearing on his motion before denying it. We conclude that this claim is without merit. The Nevada Constitution and the United States Constitution require all government searches to be reasonable and all warrants to be based on probable cause. [36] [N]o warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, and the person or persons, and thing or things to be seized. [37] Probable cause requires trustworthy facts and circumstances which would cause a person of reasonable caution to believe that it is more likely than not that the specific items to be searched for are subject to seizure and at the place to be searched. [38] This court will not overturn a probable cause finding unless the evidence in its entirety provides no substantial basis for the magistrate's finding. [39] The first warrant in question was prepared by and based upon an affidavit by LVMPD Detective Sherwood and permitted search of any computer(s) or computer-related storage media, as well as paperwork and credit card records in Weber's name in his home, that could be associated with false identification. District Judge Nancy Saitta issued the warrant on April 8, 2002. Detective Sherwood's affidavit in support of probable cause stated in part: It was learned through the investigation that the computer in the living [ ]room area was the computer that was used by Weber. It was also learned that Weber is very computer literate. It is known by your affiant that persons that have computers and fixations with children may access web sites that are pornographic in nature. It is also common for these types of persons to send electronic mail or be involved in Chat Groups regarding child pornography. LVMPD Homicide Detectives also received information that Weber utilizes the computer to produce and manufacture false identities that would [aid] and abet in his efforts to evade capture. Weber has been known by his associates to use false identification in the past. Detective Sherwood's affidavit was based upon statements made by M. and by Kim's friend Robin Thornton. During an interview with LVMPD investigators on April 8, M. told them that Weber could make a fake I.D. and had at least like twelve or thirteen credit cards in his name. That same day, Thornton told investigators that Weber and Kim had used fraudulent credit cards extensively in the past, that Weber was very computer literate, and that he made a lot of money with a scam over the Internet on his computer. Given these two statements and Detective Sherwood's own statements of professional knowledge and experience, [40] the detective's affidavit provided a substantial basis for the district judge's initial finding of probable cause to search the computer. Pursuant to that first warrant, LVMPD Forensic Investigator Larry Smith searched Weber's computer on April 18. When he discovered several depictions of what he believed was child pornography, including photos of M., Investigator Smith ceased his search and wrote an affidavit for an additional warrant to continue the search to specifically look for child pornography and related materials. District Judge Valorie Vega signed this warrant on April 23, and the search resumed. Based on Investigator Smith's discovery of child pornography during his initial computer search, probable cause existed for this second warrant. Weber maintains that the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress before deciding it. We have held that a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing [under Franks v. Delaware [41] ] to examine the validity of a search warrant unless he or she can make a preliminary showing and an offer of proof that there were intentional or reckless material falsehoods in the affidavit. [42] Here, even assuming the two warrants were based on defective probable cause, Weber has failed to make even a minimal showing of bad faith, intentional or reckless material falsehoods on the part of the investigators. Thus, Weber was not entitled to a Franks hearing on his motion challenging the warrants' validity. The district court properly denied Weber's motion without an evidentiary hearing.