U.S. v. Aleshire

In prosecution on child pornography charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to warrant, where issuance of warrant was based in part on report from 9-year-old girl that she had “dream” that defendant had pulled down her pajama pants and photographed her “privates,” and where defendant had admitted to being in girl’s room on night of alleged occurrence. While defendant argued that issuance of warrant cannot be based on “dream,” Dist. Ct. could properly find that girl’s use of word “dream” may have been euphemism because she was uncomfortable describing acts she narrated, and because child’s mother indicated that girl had used word “dream” to describe other actual events. Ct. further noted that under McIntire, 516 F3d 576, warrant-authorized search must be sustained unless it is obvious that judge who issued warrant exceeded constitutional bounds.