U.S. v. Price

In prosecution on possession and production of child pornography charges that were based in part on defendant taking sexually explicit pictures of his daughter, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion seeking to suppress pictures/videos seized from his laptop computer. Defendant signed consent to search said laptop, and Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that said consent was limited to search of laptop by only officer named in consent form, since record showed that said officer verbally told defendant that others would be conducting search of laptop. Also, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in incorporating certain Dost factors into jury instruction on definition of "lascivious exhibition," where Dist. Ct. also told jury to consider context and setting in which child’s genitalia or pubic area was being displayed.