Narrative Opinion Summary
In a case concerning charges of receipt and possession of child pornography, the court addressed multiple motions filed by the Defendant. The Defendant sought to challenge the evidence obtained through an FBI investigation on the Freenet network, arguing for access to law enforcement software, suppression of evidence from a search warrant, and the appointment of an expert. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E), the court denied the motion to compel production of the software, finding the Defendant did not demonstrate its materiality to his defense. The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained via an administrative subpoena was also denied, as the court upheld the third-party doctrine, noting the voluntary disclosure of information to Time Warner. The motion for a Franks hearing was denied, with the court finding no false statements in the affidavit related to the peer-reviewed status of a supporting academic paper. Consequently, the motion to appoint a defense expert was deemed moot. The court granted the Defendant's motion for leave to file instanter but denied all other motions, setting the trial to commence on March 4, 2019.
Legal Issues Addressed
Access to Government Possessions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant's request to access the proprietary law enforcement software was denied because he failed to demonstrate its materiality to his defense preparation.
Reasoning: The government counters that the defendant has not adequately demonstrated the materiality of the software to his defense, emphasizing that a prima facie showing is required.
Denial of Motion to Appoint Defense Expertsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant's motion to appoint a defense expert was denied as moot following the denial of previous motions, including those to compel production and suppress evidence.
Reasoning: Additionally, the denial of previous motions rendered moot the Defendant's motion to appoint a defense expert, Tami Loehrs, who aimed to inspect the Government's Freenet software and address the evidence's sufficiency.
Franks Hearing Standard for Challenging Search Warrantssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the Defendant's motion for a Franks hearing, finding no false statements in Agent Anschutz's affidavit regarding the peer-reviewed status of a supporting academic paper.
Reasoning: The Government countered that the paper...was indeed peer-reviewed according to IEEE guidelines...Consequently, the court found no false statement by Agent Anschutz and denied the motion to suppress.
Third-Party Doctrine and Administrative Subpoenassubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained via an administrative subpoena to Time Warner was denied because the information was voluntarily shared with a third party.
Reasoning: Since the defendant voluntarily shared his subscriber information with Time Warner, he relinquished any privacy interest, and therefore, the FBI was not required to obtain a warrant for that information.