Court Affirms Conviction, Imprisonment in CP Cases, but Vacates Some Conditions of Supervised Release

US v. Sueiro: Sueiro was arrested on state charges in Virginia after sending a threatening email to a former coworker. The investigating detective learned that Suiero allegedly had a computer with internet access, along with a firearm and “ballistic vest” in his room, but that he was not known to have a cell phone. The detective got a state search warrant for the room that included permission to seize “all mobile telephones,” along with other electronic devices. The warrant affidavit did not include the information that Suerio wasn’t known to have a mobile phone. The detective seized a computer and three hard drives then got a second warrant to search those items, during which he discovered child pornography. Suiero was ultimately charged with receipt and possession of the child pornography. After unsuccessfully moving to suppress the evidence found on the devices, he was convicted on all counts at trial. He was sentenced to 240 months in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Sueiro’s convictions and sentence of imprisonment, but vacated several conditions of supervised release. As to the denial of his motion to suppress, Suiero argued that the affidavit for the original warrant was overly broad. The court disagreed, holding that it was limited by the specific reference to the “illegal activity for which Sueiro had been arrested.” That it omitted the information that Sueiro wasn’t known to have a cell phone was irrelevant, given the nature of the crime being investigated and the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans do have a cell phone. While the court affirmed Sueiro’s sentence of imprisonment, it agreed with him that “the district court procedurally erred when it imposed without explanation four lifetime special conditions of supervised release,” including bans on “viewing juvenile models,” adult pornography, video games, and computers. The district court failed to provide the required “particularized explanation to support them.”