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 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 Virginia Search Warrant Suppress Lawyers Bath County
Child Pornography Virginia Search Warrant Suppress Lawyers Bath County
Kevin v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Bath County (Virginia) of 10 counts of possessing sexually explicit visual material of a person less than 18 years of age. He appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress.
Child Pornography Virginia Search Warrant Suppress Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the officer executing the warrant was limited to opening computer files with text extensions?
Discussions:
A victim told police about her computer conversations with defendant on illegal subjects, and the police got a search warrant for data on his computer about the conversations. In executing the warrant, they found child pornography. The appellate court held the officer executing the warrant was not limited to opening computer files with text extensions, and could open those with picture extensions, because defendant could apply any label to file extensions, regardless of the file’s contents. A word search would not find text saved as a picture file, and a chat session with the victim could be saved as a picture file. It was impossible to tell if a picture file was within the warrant’s scope without opening it. The officer could examine all computer files and, when he saw pornography, obtain a second warrant for that material. Defendant’s attempt to delete the picture files was irrelevant. The warrant allowed a search of any part of the computer that might have information listed in the first warrant, so the officer could look at deleted files that were re-created. The deleted files were not protected by defendant’s attempt to erase them, and they were in plain view.
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.
Maryland Child Pornography Possession Conviction Lawyers Baltimore County
Defendant’s conviction for possession of child pornography was upheld on appeal because the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to the officer executing the search warrant since defendant was not in custody at the time.
Maryland Child Pornography Possession Conviction Lawyers
Prosecution of Child Pornography is on the rise in Maryland
Frequently, innocent possession or receipt of images are being prosecuted by federal prosecutors & state prosecutors in Virginia.
If you have been charged with Child Pornography in Maryland, contact the SRIS Law Group Maryland Child Pornography defense attorneys.
Our Maryland Child Pornography defense lawyers defend cases in both the federal courts of Maryland & the state courts of Maryland.
The MD Child Pornography defense lawyers have the experience and
knowledge necessary to defend you against these types of charges.
We have client meeting locations in Baltimore & Montgomery.
