Virginia Child Pornography Sexting Lawyer Fairfax Loudoun Federal Court Minors
How Sexting can lead to Child Pornography Charges in Virginia – Especially for Minors
The penalties in Virginia for sex crimes against minors get harsher by the year. If you were to look at the punishment imposed on sex crimes in Virginia from 1960 to the present, you will see that the punishments are bordering on draconian. Lately, a lot of the sex crimes being prosecuted in Virginia are against minors themselves. A lot of teenagers who have cell phones that are enabled with internet capabilities and cameras are creating the perfect environment to send and receive illegal videos and images.
Virginia Child Pornography Sexting Lawyer
A new type of crime has been created as a result of sexting. Basically, sexting is the transmitting of sexually explicit text messages, videos, and pictures over the internet via cell phone. Considering the number of teenagers and even 11 year olds who think it is funny to send inappropriate images, videos and messages to each other, the crime of sexting is becoming an almost every day occurrence.
When a sixteen year at a Virginia high school takes a picture of his girlfriend genitalia or vice versa and then sends the picture to her or to someone else, the sixteen old can be charged with not only production of child pornography in Virginia, but also production of child pornography. Based on the current version of the law in Virginia, production or distribution or possession of child pornography is not limited only to adults.
A lot of parents are shocked and devastated when their child is suddenly facing a felony charge of possession of child pornography, production of child pornography or distribution of child pornography in Virginia. Again, the law does not create a distinction between a minor and an adult. Thus the legal consequences of sexting can be extremely detrimental to a minor who acts without thinking. That is where we can help. Our Virginia law firm represents both adults and minors charged with sex crimes cases related to the use of the internet.
In Virginia, sexting charges primarily arise from following types of scenarios: 1) crimes that involve child pornography, such as possession or production of child pornography and 2) crimes that involve the actions that occur while sexting, such as nonconsensual photography of private part, or indecent exposure.
Child pornography is a very specific legal term in Virginia. The statutes focus on private body parts, sexual acts, and simulated sexual acts that may not be shown in any image, photo, video, etc.
Virginia categorizes three different acts of child pornography: production of child pornography in Virginia, possession of child in Virginia, and distribution of child pornography in Virginia. All three types of acts are felonies in Virginia.
Our law firm defends clients charged with child pornography throughout the entire state of Virginia. We also defend clients charged in Federal Court.
Our client meeting locations in Virginia are in Fairfax, Loudoun, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Loudoun, Prince William, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
We also defend clients before the following federal courts in Virginia: Alexandria, Newport New, Norfolk, Richmond, Abingdon, Big Stone Gap, Charlottesville, Danville, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg and Roanoke.
If you are seriously seeking an experienced lawyer to defend you or your child against a sexting or child pornography charge in Virginia, call us at 888-437-7747 for help. We have handled these types of cases before and we understand how easy it is to get caught up on the web of the internet.
VA Code 18.2-374.1 (Production of Child Pornography)
Production of Child Pornography in Virginia is a very serious felony. The penalty for production of child pornography in Virginia is 1-20 years in prison if the victim is over 15 years old. 3-30 years if the defendant is more than 7 years older than the minor. If the victim is under 15 years old then the defendant faces 5-30 years in prison. 15-40 years if the defendant is more than 7 years older than the victim. A second conviction for child porn can result in up to 15-40 years in prison depending on the age of the defendant and victim.
VA Code 18.2-374.1:1 (Possession of Child Pornography)
Knowingly possessing child pornography is a class 6 Felony, meaning that it can result in up to 5 years in prison. Subsequent convictions result in a class 5 felony with up to 10 years in prison.
VA Code 18.2-374.1:1 (Distribution of Child Pornography)
Distribution of child pornography is very simple and very serious. A first offense means 5-20 years in prison not matter how old the defendant or the victim is. Distribution means reproducing, copying, selling, giving away, and electronically transmitting, etc. child pornography.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Richmond Images Violate Constitutional Rights
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Richmond Images Violate Constitutional Rights
Abraham v. Commonwealth Of Virginia
Facts:
On September 4, 2003, police interviewed appellant’s roommate regarding child pornography he found on appellant’s computer. On September 9, 2003, based on the roommate’s affidavit, police executed a search warrant at appellant’s residence. The search resulted in discovery of four hard drives, multiple zip disks, and multiple 3.5-inch diskettes that contained images of child pornography. The trial court found the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support appellant’s convictions. The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Virginia) convicted defendant on twenty-four counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1 and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Defendant challenged his convictions, contending that his prosecution violated his constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Richmond
Issue:
Whether the defendant’s prosecution violated defendant’s constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment?
Discussion:
This court held that the appellant continued to possess the child pornographic images at the time of his arrest, notwithstanding the date the images were originally downloaded. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s convictions for possession of child pornography. Defendant contended that the material he was found guilty of possessing was either created or last accessed in December 2000, at a time when possession of child pornography was a Class 1 misdemeanor. But, he was indicted for possession of child pornography on September 9, 2003, two months after possession of child pornography became a felony under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Second, the Commonwealth met its burden of establishing that on September 9, 2003, defendant was aware of and knowingly possessed child pornographic materials on his computer and accessories, and this finding was earlier affirmed. The mere fact that some of defendant’s acts proving his possession in September, 2003 occurred before the change in the law did not preclude application of the new law. The trial court found that defendant continued to possess the child pornographic images at the time of his arrest, notwithstanding the date the images were originally downloaded.
Judgment:
This court hence affirmed the trial court judgment convicting the defendant for possession of child pornography.
A Virginia child pornography charge is a very serious crime. The SRIS Law Group Virginia child pornography defense lawyers can defend you against any type of child pornography charge in Virginia. Our Virginia law firm has handled numerous cases of child pornography in Virginia starting from simple possession all the way to distribution of child pornography. Our firm has the experience to defend you in any part of Virginia against any allegation of child pornography in Virginia.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyer today if you have been charged with child pornography in Virginia. We have client meeting locations in Fairfax, Manassas, Richmond, Lynchburg, Loudoun, Fredericksburg & Virginia Beach.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Norfolk Sexually Explicit Images
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Norfolk Sexually Explicit Images
Arthur v. Commonwealth
Facts:
On conducting surveillance of defendant Norfolk Police Officer found defendant, using library computer equipment, accessed and printed four sexually explicit images of children. He was arrested immediately upon exiting the library, charged with “reproducing sexually explicit material of persons less than eighteen years of age,” and a “three-ring binder” containing the four pictures printed at the library was taken from his person. He entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor offense.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Norfolk
The Commonwealth introduced into evidence, the “four plastic grocery bags”. The court convicted and sentenced defendant on the misdemeanor but dismissed the felony. The jury of the Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, indicted defendant on eight counts of possession of child pornography and four counts of production of sexually explicit items involving children. Prior to trial, defendant moved the court to quash the felony indictments. The trial court overruled the motion. Defendant appealed
Issue:
Whether the prosecutions constituted double jeopardy because the evidence presented in the general district court to prove the misdemeanor offense, possession of child pornography, was also used to support the subsequent felony convictions in the trial court for the identical crime, as a second or subsequent offense?
Discussion:
This Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. therefore under the double jeopardy clause an accused may not be subjected to “a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense.
The evidence which the prosecution relied on in both the cases was “four plastic grocery bags containing numerous photographs printed from a computer,” Defendant was found guilty and sentenced accordingly in the district court. Thereafter, when the grand jury indicted him on eight counts of the same crime, as a second or subsequent offense, “twenty pictures related to the possession charges,” all from the “four plastic grocery bags” of photographs introduced in the earlier misdemeanor prosecution were shown as evidence. These facts clearly point out that the defendant was prosecuted for the same offense after conviction, a violation of his protection against double jeopardy.
A Virginia child pornography charge is a very serious crime. The SRIS Law Group Virginia child pornography defense lawyers can defend you against any type of child pornography charge in Virginia. Our Virginia law firm has handled numerous cases of child pornography in Virginia starting from simple possession all the way to distribution of child pornography. Our firm has the experience to defend you in any part of Virginia against any allegation of child pornography in Virginia.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyer today if you have been charged with child pornography in Virginia. We have client meeting locations in Fairfax, Manassas, Richmond, Lynchburg, Loudoun, Fredericksburg & Virginia Beach.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Richmond Offensive Images
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Richmond Offensive Images
James v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Police while responding to a fire found chemicals and explosives. Appellant responded that he “was making pyrotechnic devices, rockets and other pyrotechnic type devices.” He gave written consent for police to search the residence and also consented to a search of the computer. The computer contained information concerning child pornography and so the officer obtained a second search warrant before examining the computer further. The pictures were located in a file-sharing program called “M.” The default setting for M is to share files with other users via the Internet, although this computer’s setting had been manipulated not to share files and there was no way to tell who downloaded the pictures or who used the computer at any given time. Officer testified that the “systems registry” showed “X” was a registered owner of the Windows XP software.
Virginia Child Pornography Lawyer Richmond
The officer testified that there is no evidence to suggest that anyone other than appellant used the computer. Another application on the computer showed a user name of “Y.” The computer was not password protected, and anyone could have access to it. Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (Virginia) convicted defendant of 15 counts of misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Defendant appealed.
Issue:
- Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict defendant of possession of child pornography?
Discussion:
In order to convict a person of possession of child pornography, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual “knowingly possessed sexually explicit visual material utilizing or having as a subject a person less than 18 years. This court held that evidence at trial was sufficient to convict defendant of possession of child pornography. It was clear that someone had “sought out” child pornography. It was clear that someone “acquired” the offensive images and brought them into appellant’s home from “cyberspace.” The appellant had exclusive control of the residence.
The computer was seized from a residence to which appellant had a key and he only had given consent to search the residence, and he admitted ownership of certain pyrotechnics found on the premises. Further “the registration on the computer tied to his name,” along with appellant’s name being associated with the computer during the time when the computer made one hundred “hits” on child pornography. Most importantly, the computer had “quick desktop access” to the folder containing the images. Using a totality of the circumstances approach, the court found the evidence sufficient to show appellant had control of the residence and the computer. This court hence affirmed the judgment of the trial court which convicted defendant of 15 counts of misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1.
A Virginia child pornography charge is a very serious crime. The SRIS Law Group Virginia child pornography defense lawyers can defend you against any type of child pornography charge in Virginia. Our Virginia law firm has handled numerous cases of child pornography in Virginia starting from simple possession all the way to distribution of child pornography. Our firm has the experience to defend you in any part of Virginia against any allegation of child pornography in Virginia.
Contact a SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyer today if you have been charged with child pornography in Virginia. We have client meeting locations in Fairfax, Manassas, Richmond, Lynchburg, Loudoun, Fredericksburg & Virginia Beach.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Child Pornography Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Possession Evidence Knowledge
Child Pornography Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Possession Evidence Knowledge
Green v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Following a bench trial, the Circuit Court of the City of Fairfax (Virginia) convicted defendant of 15 counts of misdemeanor possession of child pornography in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Defendant appealed.
Child Pornography Fairfax Virginia Lawyer Possession Evidence Knowledge
Issue:
- Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to convict him of possession of child pornography?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to convict him of possession of child pornography. Specifically, he contended that the Commonwealth failed to prove he knowingly possessed the images contained within the computer. Defendant also alleged that the images were “hidden” in the computer. The appellate court concluded that the record supported the reasonable inference that defendant used the computer and had knowledge and control over its contents. Among other things, the computer, located in a residence over which defendant had exclusive control, contained “quick desktop access” to the folder containing the images, thus defeating defendant’s argument that the images were “hidden.” In addition, the systems registry on the computer revealed defendant as a registered owner of the operating system, and there was a software default setting that had been manually set to disallow file sharing, establishing the user’s control and management of the files.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Child Pornography Lee Virginia Image Possession Minor Delinquency Lawyer
Child Pornography Lee Virginia Image Possession Minor Delinquency Lawyer
Commonwealth v. Philip
Facts:
Defendant was charged with the felonious possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. The Commonwealth contended that defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18 years on his cell phone and on his computer. A single photograph was tendered to the court and made a part of the record under seal. Defendant moved to dismiss.
Child Pornography Lee Virginia Image Possession Minor Delinquency Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18?
Discussions:
The photograph depicted a female from the top of the breasts to mid thigh. The arms of the female are clasped across the breasts, exposing a small portion of the areola of one and possibly two breasts. Due to the grainy nature of the photograph it was unclear whether one nipple was visible. She may have beneath her upper torso an article of clothing that may have been raised to expose a portion of the breast. Otherwise the female form was sufficiently clad to completely cover the pubic area.
The evidence failed to support a finding that the offending material satisfied the element of a sexually explicit showing of a lewd exhibition of nudity required under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1. As a matter of law, the photograph did not meet the requirements established by the Virginia appellate courts for child pornography. Defendant was also charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor because it was alleged that defendant caused a student to transmit the photograph to his cell phone and to his computer. Those two charges were dependent upon a finding that the photograph constituted child pornography.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Punishment Knowledge Lawyers Bedford City
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Punishment Knowledge Lawyers Bedford City
Commonwealth v. Bennett
Facts:
The Circuit Court of the City of Bedford (Virginia) convicted defendant on twenty-four counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1 and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison. Defendant appealed.
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Punishment Knowledge Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether defendant can be was found guilty of possessing pornographic materials?
Discussions:
Defendant challenged his convictions, contending that his prosecution violated his constitutional right to be free from ex post facto punishment. The appeals court disagreed. Defendant contended that the material he was found guilty of possessing was either created or last accessed in December 2000, at a time when possession of child pornography was a Class 1 misdemeanor. But, he was indicted for possession of child pornography on September 9, 2003, two months after possession of child pornography became a felony under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. Second, the Commonwealth met its burden of establishing that on September 9, 2003, defendant was aware of and knowingly possessed child pornographic materials on his computer and accessories, and this finding was earlier affirmed. The mere fact that some of defendant’s acts proving his possession in September, 2003 occurred before the change in the law did not preclude application of the new law. The trial court found that defendant continued to possess the child pornographic images at the time of his arrest, notwithstanding the date the images were originally downloaded.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Child Pornography Virginia Evidence Electronic Files Attorneys New Kent County
Child Pornography Virginia Evidence Electronic Files Attorneys New Kent County
Lawson v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was indicted for possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code § 18.2-374.1:1. After the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed his convictions, he appealed, challenging the admission into evidence of digital video recordings and still images of child pornography reproduced from electronic files on digital video discs (DVDs) copied from hard drives found in his computer.
Child Pornography Virginia Evidence Electronic Files Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in receiving digital images into evidence?
Discussions:
Defendant argued that because pornographic images of children were the contraband in prosecutions under Va. Code § 18.2-374.1:1, and because digital images were subject to manipulation, the court should extend the best evidence rule to those images. Affirming, the court noted that a forensic digital evidence scientist had been qualified as an expert and testified at trial that a bit for bit copy of a hard drive was considered forensically to be an original. She also testified that she made a bit for bit copy of the hard drives in defendant’s computer and identified the photographs and video clips as accurate representations of the child pornography she viewed on the digital reproduction she made. Defendant did not assert that the admitted photographs or video clips were in any way manipulated or altered from the images that resided on his computer’s hard drives. Based on the record, the court concluded that the printed pictures and video recordings were reliable representations of the material contained in the digital image and video recording files on defendant’s computer hard drives. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in receiving them into evidence.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Photograph Student Attorneys Henrico County
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Photograph Student Attorneys Henrico County
Commonwealth v. Yale
Facts:
Defendant was charged with the felonious possession of child pornography, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1:1. The Commonwealth contended that defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18 years on his cell phone and on his computer. A single photograph was tendered to the court and made a part of the record under seal. Defendant moved to dismiss.
Child Pornography Virginia Possession Photograph Student Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether defendant possessed a photograph image of a student under the age of 18?
Discussions:
The photograph depicted a female from the top of the breasts to mid thigh. The arms of the female are clasped across the breasts, exposing a small portion of the areola of one and possibly two breasts. Due to the grainy nature of the photograph it was unclear whether one nipple was visible. She may have beneath her upper torso an article of clothing that may have been raised to expose a portion of the breast. Otherwise the female form was sufficiently clad to completely cover the pubic area. The evidence failed to support a finding that the offending material satisfied the element of a sexually explicit showing of a lewd exhibition of nudity required under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-374.1. As a matter of law, the photograph did not meet the requirements established by the Virginia appellate courts for child pornography. Defendant was also charged with two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor because it was alleged that defendant caused a student to transmit the photograph to his cell phone and to his computer. Those two charges were dependent upon a finding that the photograph constituted child pornography.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers Norfolk City
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers Norfolk City
AVENTA MARK v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Facts:
The Circuit Court of the City of Norfolk, Virginia, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and convicted him of carnal knowledge of a minor, statutory rape, two counts of sodomy, participating in child pornography, possession of child pornography, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed.
Statutory Rape Virginia Pornography Possession Distribute Lawyers
Issues:
- Whether the search warrant and affidavit are compliant with statutory requirements in terms of probable cause requirement and specificity requirement?
Discussion:
A presumption of validity attaches when a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate or judicial officer. Therefore, where the police conduct a search pursuant to a judicially sanctioned warrant, the defendant must rebut the presumption of validity by proving that the warrant is illegal or invalid. Code § 19.2-54 expressly prohibits issuance of a “general warrant for the search of a house, place, compartment, vehicle or baggage.” So long as the search warrant describes the objects of the search with reasonable specificity, it complies with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. The determination whether the warrant possesses the requisite degree of specificity requires a fact-specific, case-specific analysis. In the present case, warrant was issued in relation to the “Production, Sale, Possession, Etc. Of Obscene Items,” supported by an affidavit that specifically enumerated the things or persons to be searched for, all items reasonably related to the particular offenses. Thus, the pertinent instruments sufficiently detailed the objects that were the subject of the search, together with a compelling nexus to the offenses under investigation, thereby satisfying both constitutional and statutory safeguards. Defendant asserts that the probable cause requirement was not fulfilled by evidence of the Commonwealth. When considered in totality, the circumstances clearly gave rise to a “fair probability” that like contraband or evidence of a crime would be found within defendant’s residence and justified issuance of the disputed warrant. The description of the items to be seized was included in the affidavit and was a part of the warrant. Where the actual photographs and attendant circumstances, including an explanation of the images, were before the judicial officer issuing the warrant, providing facts that substantially enhanced the measure of probable cause in support of the warrant, there was no constitutional or statutory taint to the affidavit, search warrant, or related search.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your sex crime case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your sex crime case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your sex crime case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
