ILNews

7th Circuit addresses digital media searches

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Despite being troubled by some aspects of a police officer's search of computers of a man charged with voyeurism - during which the officer discovered child pornography - the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found the search didn't exceed the scope of the original warrant.

In United States of America v. Matthew Eric Mann, No. 08-3041, Matthew Mann appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of child pornography found on computers police searched to find evidence of voyeurism. Women in a locker room discovered a camera Mann had installed while working at the facility as a lifeguard. The police got a warrant to search Mann's computers to find images of women in locker rooms or other private areas. The police took a few computers and related items. 

Two months later, Lafayette Police Detective Paul Huff searched Mann's computers using software that would put the images into a viewable format and also alert police to Known File Filter files, which typically are previously identified child pornography images.

Huff found images from locker rooms and child pornography after searching the two computers. Two months later, he found four KFF alert files of child pornography on the external hard drive, and that many other flagged images were also of child pornography. Huff also found two videos from a high school locker room.

Mann tried to suppress the evidence because the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant. The District Court concluded with limited exceptions the search was within the scope of the warrant. Mann then entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of child pornography and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his challenge to suppress.

Mann wanted the Circuit judges to use United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 1999), to overturn the District Court's decision, but the 7th Circuit found Mann's case was similar to United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2003). Like the officer in Wong, Huff continued to look for voyeuristic images even after he discovered the child pornography.

The Circuit judges also decided the four KFF alert files were outside the scope of the search because Huff should have known once they were flagged, they would be child pornography. However, the other images Huff discovered should have been allowed because images indicating voyeurism could have been hidden anywhere in the computer and not easily recognizable, noted Judge Ilana Rovner.

The 7th Circuit also advised those involved in searches of digital media to exercise caution to ensure warrants describe "with particularity the things to be seized and that searches are narrowly tailored to uncover only those things described."

Although they allowed the images other than the 4 KFF alert files found by Huff to be admitted into evidence, "we emphasize that his failure to stop his search and request a separate warrant for child pornography is troubling," wrote Judge Rovner.

The appellate judges found it problematic that Huff waited two months before searching additional computer equipment but notwithstanding their "distaste for the timeline of the investigation,"  the original warrant authorized Huff's search of the external hard drive for voyeuristic images.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT