Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did nor err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of VHS tape containing pictures of child pornography, where affidavit submitted in support of search warrant indicated that defendant and minor communicated via their cell phones, and that minor sent to defendant naked pictures of herself in various sexual positions. While defendant argued that police should not have seized VHS tape since affidavit indicated that pictures were relayed through cell phones and since there was no indication that defendant had transferred photos to any other device, judge who issued warrant could properly find that images sent via cell phones could be transferred to other storage devices such as videotapes in view of large number of images in question. Fact that agent preparing affidavit failed to mention possibility of said transfer did not invalidate warrant.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress gun found by police in defendant’s bag located in car of defendant’s cousin, even though police lacked warrant to search said bag. At time of search, warrant had been issued for defendant’s alleged parole violation, and defendant had previously agreed in writing to consent to search of his property as condition of his supervised release. Moreover, because of his status as parolee, defendant’s expectations of privacy were so diminished that instant warrantless search was reasonable under 4th Amendment.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendants' guilty verdicts on charge of conspiracy to commit bribery, where said charge arose out of undercover government sting operation that involved defendants’ plan to bribe local official to obtain government contract. Record showed that subject matter of bribe met $5,000 threshold, where: (1) subject matter of bribe was fictional pharmaceutical dispensing contract involving million or more prescriptions for up to 3-year period; and (2) bribe itself was $10,000. Moreover, jury could have found that fictional officer was agent of Los Angeles County for purposes of satisfying element of bribery statute that required proof that governmental agency, which was represented by fictional agent, received over $10,000 in federal funds.