US v. Glass: An officer obtained a search warrant for Glass’ home and electronic devices, based on the allegation of his ex-wife that she had seen “a massive amount of child porn saved on his phone.” The searches uncovered child sexual abuse material. Charged with multiple counts of receiving and possessing CSAM, Glass moved to suppress, arguing that the officer had failed to inform the magistrate judge of his ex-wife’s prior allegations against him (none of which resulted in any charge or arrest) and other details that might impact her credibility. The district court denied the motion and Glass went to trial and was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Glass’ motion to suppress, concluding that he could not “satisfy his heavy burden” in challenging the sufficiency of the warrant application. The court held that the ex-wife’s allegations were “detailed and specific” with regards to the CSAM. The prior investigations, rather than undermining her credibility, bolstered it because “her report concerned a suspect who was likely involved in similar offenses in the past.” That the prior investigations “did not churn up concrete evidence” that led to charges did not mean those allegations had been fabricated. “Probable cause does not dissipate simply because a witness’s previous, similar reports against the defendant went without criminal consequences.” Nor were the other omitted facts (including any specific reference that the informant was Glass’ ex-wife) sufficient to defeat probable cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment