U.S. v. Wenzel

In prosecution on two counts of creating child pornography, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence collected from two searches of his home, where defendant claimed that police lacked probable cause to effectuate either search. Record showed that: (1) mother of child placed in defendant’s home care told police that she had discovered recording video camera in restroom vent in defendant’s home; and (2) within one day of mother’s tip, police discovered that defendant was on sex offender registry and had been convicted of first-degree sexual assault. As such, police could properly view such evidence as establishing probable cause that defendant had violated Wisconsin statute prohibiting certain clandestine recording of others, and result of first search gave police probable cause to seek evidence of child pornography in second search. Moreover, instant warrant was not overbroad either with respect to seeking too many items or searching in too many places on defendant’s property, since warrant’s list of several concrete categories of items concerned capture, storage or dissemination of recorded images that related to instant charges.