United States Eighth Circuit

Conviction for receiving and possessing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress based on challenge to the validity of search warrant, as even if the warrant application had disclosed the defendant was present in the secretly recorded videos, the magistrate could reasonably assume that a probability of criminal conduct was shown based on invasion of privacy when the video was taken of others in the nude; 2) the warrant was not facially overbroad in allowing a search of storage of digital images; and 3) police did not unlawfully expand the scope of the invasion-of-privacy search into a search of child pornography, and the items were lawfully seized pursuant to the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/20/2009
• Published 07/20/2009

Judges

• SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge., Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas J. Bath, Jr., Bath & Edmonds, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued (Robin D. Fowler, on the brief), for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Katharine Fincham, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued (John F. Wood, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.