U.S. v. Schenck

In prosecution on production of child pornography charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress images seized from defendant’s computer and phone located in his apartment, where said seizure was procured through warrant, even though defendant argued that affidavit supporting warrant failed to establish that victim was minor. While affiant never explicitly explained how he knew victim’s date of birth, affiant listed victim’s age at less than three years old at time of images, and state-court judge who issued warrant had good reason to think that victim (who was defendant’s child) was minor at all relevant times, where defendant’s juvenile records indicated that defendant would have had to have been six or seven years when he fathered victim in order for victim to be 18 years old. Moreover, affidavit suggested that affiant learned of victim’s age indirectly from individual who had interviewed victim’s mother. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that affidavit failed to establish reasonable basis to think that images were pornographic, where affidavit quoted individual, who had received images from defendant and described images through use of vulgar word that connotated focus on female genitalia.