Opinion ID: 792174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reliance on collector characteristics

Text: 64 The majority exaggerates the relevance of the corrected affidavit's descriptions of child pornography collectors (hereafter referred to as collectors of illegal visual depictions) by improperly inferring that all subscribers to the E-group are collectors of illegal visual depictions. 15 This erroneous inference allows the majority to attribute the characteristics of these collectors-including the possession of illegal visual depictions-to all subscribers of the E-group (and therefore Martin). The affidavit does not support this inference. At no point does the affidavit describe the universe of subscribers to the E-groups, let alone allege that the E-groups' memberships are entirely composed of collectors of illegal visual depictions. It is an inferential fallacy of ancient standing to conclude that, because members of group A (collectors of illegal visual depictions) are likely to be members of group B (subscribers to specified E-groups) then group B is entirely, or even largely composed of, members of group A. 65 Such reasoning would lead us to conclude that if collectors of illegal visual depictions tend to be men, then men are likely to be collectors of illegal visual depictions. The majority justifies this inference by stating that it is common sense that any person who subscribes to one of these E-groups would more than likely download and possess illegal visual depictions. Op. at 75. The majority's conclusion that E-group subscribers are likely to be collectors of illegal visual depictions is common sense only if one studiously ignores the affidavit's extensive description of the text-based functions of the E-group. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (indicating that common sense determinations must be based on the content set forth in the affidavit).