Opinion ID: 203200
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Court Motion to Suppress

Text: Rogers filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence discovered after the issuance of the first search warrant  the videotapes, the pornographic images discovered on his computer, and his incriminating statements. He argued that the first search warrant's authorization to search for and seize photos of DW encompassed solely developed print photographs and not images on a videotape or on a computer. He further argued that because the contents of the first videotape provided the basis for the second search warrant, everything discovered and seized pursuant to the second warrant should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to suppress. She concluded that searching the computer hard drive and the videotape for photos of DW was well within the scope of the warrant because both were plausible repositories for photos of DW. App. 12. She reasoned that [g]iven the current state of technology, looking at a computer's hard drive to find photos is no more inappropriate than opening a photo album and that [c]urrent technology also permits `photos' to be stored on homemade videotapes. Id. Over Rogers' objection, the district court adopted the magistrate's report and recommendation in its entirety. App. 14-15.