U.S. v. Valley

In prosecution on charge of receipt of child pornography stemming from defendant’s efforts to pose as teenage boy on Internet in order to persuade under-aged girls to provide him with sexually-explicit pictures, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements defendant made during 5.5 hour execution of search warrant. While defendant argued that he was “in custody” during execution of warrant, such that he should have been given Miranda warnings prior to making such statements, Dist. Ct. was entitled to credit officer’s testimony that defendant was free to leave premises at any time and that he was free to move about premises for all but few minutes after police made their initial entry. Moreover, warrant was supported by probable cause even though it was issued eight months after last police investigator download of child pornography from IP address at defendant’s residence, since affidavit supporting search warrant made statement indicating likelihood that child pornography would still be contained in computers located at said residence.