Opinion ID: 49000
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Validity of Warrant to Search 7608 Scenic Brook Drive

Text: 13 A valid search warrant may be issued only upon a finding of probable cause. United States v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300, 1302 (5th Cir.1991). The information necessary to show probable cause must be contained within a written affidavit given under oath. Id. Probable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; a magistrate need only have a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Id. A magistrate's determination is entitled to deference by reviewing courts. Id. 14 In this case it is clear that there was a substantial basis to conclude that evidence of criminal activity would be found at 7608 Scenic Brook Drive. The affidavit presented to the magistrate included the information that the child pornography viewed by the witness in New York had been transmitted over the IP address 24.27.21.6, and that this IP address was assigned to Javier Perez, residing at 7608 Scenic Brook Drive, Austin, Texas 78736. Perez argues that the association of an IP address with a physical address does not give rise to probable cause to search that address. He argues that if he used an unsecure wireless connection, then neighbors would have been able to easily use [Perez's] internet access to make the transmissions. But though it was possible that the transmissions originated outside of the residence to which the IP address was assigned, it remained likely that the source of the transmissions was inside that residence. See United States v. Grant, 218 F.3d 72, 73 (1st Cir.2000) (stating that even discounting for the possibility that an individual other than [defendant] may have been using his account, there was a fair probability that [defendant] was the user and that evidence of the user's illegal activities would be found in [defendant's] home) (emphasis in original). 2 [P]robable cause does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown, 941 F.2d at 1302. 15 Perez also argues that evidence that illicit transmissions were made does not give rise to probable cause that physical evidence would be located at the residence. However, the New York witness stated that the images she observed appeared to be videos played on a television screen transmitted via a web cam. There was therefore a basis to believe that the suspect would have such videos in his residence. Moreover, Britt stated in his affidavit that, in his experience, persons interested in child pornography typically retain numerous images of child pornography as well as material documenting the arrangements, the introduction, and tasks to consummate the acquisition of child pornography. Based on this information, there was probable cause to believe that physical evidence of violations of the child pornography laws would be located at 7608 Scenic Brook Drive. 16 The analysis is complicated, however, by the fact that 7608 Scenic Brook Drive has more than one occupancy unit. 3 The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant particularly describ[e] the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Multiple circuit courts have held that to satisfy the particularity requirement when a search involves a building with multiple, separate residency units, the warrant must specify the precise unit that is the subject of the search. See United States v. White, 416 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir.2005). [W]hen a building is divided into more than one residential unit, a distinct probable cause determination must be made for each unit. United States v. Butler, 71 F.3d 243, 249 (7th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Hinton, 219 F.2d 324, 325-26 (7th Cir.1955) (For purposes of satisfying the Fourth Amendment, searching two or more apartments in the same building is no different than searching two or more completely separate houses. Probable cause must be shown for searching each house or, in this case, each apartment.). Thus the general rule is that a warrant that authorizes the search of an undisclosed multi-unit dwelling is invalid. United States v. Gilman, 684 F.2d 616, 618 (9th Cir.1982). 17 There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. The warrant of a multi-unit structure will be valid where (1) there is probable cause to search each unit; 4 (2) the targets of the investigation have access to the entire structure; or (3) the officers reasonably believed that the premises had only a single unit. United States v. Johnson, 26 F.3d 669, 694 (7th Cir.1994); Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85-86, 107 S.Ct. 1013. Gilman, 684 F.2d at 618. 5 In assessing whether any of these exceptions can support the validity of the warrant, we must look to the information in possession of the police and magistrate at the time the warrant was issued. Garrison, 480 U.S. at 85, 107 S.Ct. 1013 (The validity of the warrant must be assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover and disclose, to the issuing Magistrate.). 18 In Garrison, the Supreme Court concluded that the warrant to search the third floor of 2036 Park Avenue was valid because the police reasonably believed that the third floor contained only one apartment when they applied for the warrant. Though the Court acknowledged that [a]rguments can certainly be made that the police in this case should have been able to ascertain that there was more than one apartment on the third floor of this building, the Court noted that the police made specific inquiries to determine the identity of the occupants of the third-floor premises, including visiting the address and checking with the local gas and electric company and local police department. Id. at 86 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 1013. 19 Though Perez contends that the police performed an insufficient investigation into the occupancy of 7608 Scenic Brook Drive before obtaining the warrant, the steps that the police took in this case are similar to those taken in Garrison. The officers performed a public records check, a utilities company check, and an internet white pages check, all indicating that 7608 Scenic Brook Drive was occupied by Perez and none indicating the presence of any other residents. We therefore conclude that the police officers reasonably believed that 7608 Scenic Brook Drive had only one resident at the time the warrant was issued. Accordingly, the warrant in this case was valid. 20