Opinion ID: 2572
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Falso's Criminal History

Text: The most obvious other factor that might support a finding of probable cause is Falso's eighteen-year-old misdemeanor conviction for Endangering the Welfare of a Child. The district court found Falso's conviction [i]mportant[ ] and highly relevant to the probable cause calculus in light of the affidavit's representation that the majority of individuals who collect child pornography are persons who have a sexual attraction to [children]. But this reasoning falls victim to logic. It is an inferential fallacy of ancient standing to conclude that, because members of group A (those who collect child pornography) are likely to be members of group B (those attracted to children), then group B is entirely, or even largely composed of, members of group A. See Martin, 426 F.3d at 82 (Pooler, J., dissenting) (pointing out the fallacy in a different context). [14] Although offenses relating to child pornography and sexual abuse of minors both involve the exploitation of children, that does not compel, or even suggest, the correlation drawn by the district court. [15] Perhaps it is true that all or most people who are attracted to minors collect child pornography. But that association is nowhere stated or supported in the affidavit. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (probable cause assessments are to be made from all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit); Gourde, 440 F.3d at 1067 (All data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of a written affidavit given under oath (internal marks and citation omitted)). While the district court undoubtedly had the safety of the public in mind, an individual's Fourth Amendment right cannot be vitiated based on fallacious inferences drawn from facts not supported by the affidavit. Nor is the district court's reasoning saved by the affidavit's general statement, relied upon by the government at oral argument, that computers are utilized by individuals who exploit children (which includes collectors of child pornography) to... locate, view, download, collect and organize images of child pornography found through the internet. [16] There simply is nothing in this statement indicating that it is more (or less) likely that Falso's computer might contain images of child pornography. That is, the affidavit's sweeping representation that computers are used by those who exploit children to, inter alia, view and download child pornography, would be equally true if 1% or 100% of those who exploit children used computers to do those things. Furthermore, we agree with Falso that even if his prior conviction were relevant to the analysis, it should have only been marginally relevant because the conviction was stale. This Court has explained that [t]wo critical factors in determining whether facts supporting a search warrant are stale are `the age of those facts and the nature of the conduct alleged to have violated the law.' United States v. Ortiz, 143 F.3d 728, 732 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Martino, 664 F.2d 860, 867 (2d Cir.1981)). Here, both factors combine to undermine the probity of Falso's prior conviction. First, the sheer length of time that had elapsed renders Falso's prior sex crime only marginally relevant, if at all. Certainly there are cases where it may be appropriate for a district court to consider a dated sex crime; for example, where there is evidence of ongoing impropriety, because in such cases the prior offense would tend to be less aberrational. See, e.g., United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110, 124-25 (2d Cir.2006) (finding no error in the district court's consideration of defendant's twenty-year-old conviction for attempted sexual abuse of a minor when denying defendant's motion to suppress, where there was evidence of two-year-old letters written by defendant discussing the exploitation of children, evidence that he sexually abused boys in Mexico five years earlier, and the statement of a friend that had used his computer to receive child pornography). But no such evidence was provided in this case to bridge the temporal gap between Falso's eighteen-year old sex offense and the suspected child-pornography offense. Second, although Falso's crime allegedly involved the sexual abuse of a minor, [17] it did not relate to child pornography. Cf. Wagers, 452 F.3d at 537, 541 (finding no error in the district court's reliance on defendant's seven-year-old conviction of possession of child pornography in upholding search warrant directed at same illegal activity). That the law criminalizes both child pornography and the sexual abuse (or endangerment) of children cannot be enough. They are separate offenses and, as explained above, nothing in the affidavit draws a correlation between a person's propensity to commit both types of crimes. [18]