What are the chances of getting a pic with a computer and something tying into staleness?!United States v. Gillman, No. 09-6109 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) (unpublished). Panel of judges Boggs, Siler, and Van Tatenhove (E.D. Ky.). Child-pornography case. Defendant appealed denial of motion to suppress. COA affirmed that denial.
Facts:
Police accessed a peer-to-peer file-sharing network and saw a user with a given IP address sharing CP. The police contacted the internet-service provider and got information on the person to whom the IP addressed was assigned. Five months later, the police obtained a warrant to search the address-user's residence and computer. Police went to the home and the defendant made a statement. Police then executed the warrant (the defendant denied consent to search).
Defendant entered a conditional plea.
Issue:
The defendant argued "that the IP address was not itself a sufficient nexus between the sharing of child pornography and his residence because it was possible he used a wireless internet router—something that would have allowed anyone nearby to access the internet and share child pornography through his IP address.
Conclusions:
* Court rejects this argument, citing United States v. Hinojosa, 606 F.3d 875 (6th Cir. 2010). Under Hinojosa, the IP address established a sufficient nexus to connect the CP and the residence and computer. Potential use of a wireless router "does not negate the fair probability that child pornography emanating from an IP address will be found on a computer at its registered residential address."
* Five months does not make the info stale. CP is not a fleeting offense.
* Defendant was not in custody when he made his statements, so Miranda did not kick in. Eighty minutes of questioning does not necessarily mean custody.
