P19hf56 Y0nktrzu3 Jsaqx Oe42lnmi9r

Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Cybertip Protection Warrant

Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers Cybertip Protection Warrant

John Carter v. Commonwealth
Facts:

Child protection association received a “cybertip,” a complaint of suspected child pornography on the internet, from an internet service provider. The cybertip identified the IP address of a computer associated with the provider’s account that had accessed child pornography. The association identified the owner of the IP address and forwarded their investigation files to a county sheriff in Virginia. No one began investigating the tip until almost two years later. The trial court held that an officer’s affidavit contained insufficient probable case to support a warrant to search defendant’s home for child pornography, as it stated a false date for the cybertip, and did not state any connection between the crime and defendant’s residence. The Commonwealth argued that the good faith exception applied because the officers seeking the warrant did not act in reckless disregard of the truth.

Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers

Virginia Child Pornography Lawyers

Issue:
  • Whether the trial court erred in failing to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, ?
Discussion:

This court held that while the good faith exception expressed in Leon generally allows a police officer to rely on a probable cause determination made by a magistrate, “[g]ood faith is not a magic lamp for police officers to rub whenever they find themselves in trouble.” Instead, “[s]uppression [is] an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923. Here, the trial court determined that “sloppy” and reckless police work resulted in both a misstatement and an omission of material facts in the affidavit. It thus concluded that the magistrate was misled as to the existence of probable cause. After examining this record, this court held that it cannot be said that the trial court’s conclusion was plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, this court affirms the trial court’s decision.

Judgment:

This court hence affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting defendant’s motion to suppress. 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.

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.

Comments are closed.

Powered by: Wordpress