Fighting Search Warrants in Minnesota Child Pornography Cases

Child pornography cases in Minnesota and across the country seem to be on the rise. With internet usage continuing to go through the roof, the Net has created a conduit for those seeking pornography of all types. Of course, while adult pornography is absolutely legal, child pornography is not. That being said, there is a massive leap between knowing that child pornography is on the internet and a half a dozen police officers pounding on your front door screaming that they have a search warrant. One of the major tools of police departments here in Minnesota is that search warrant and the evidence it yields. The focus of this article is to take a closer look at challenging that search warrant. If you are facing child pornography possession or distribution charges in Minnesota, make sure you consult with an experienced Minnesota child pornography attorney. 

“Defending those charged with child pornography starts with looking at the elements of the charge and figuring out how to chip away at them one at a time.”

Search Warrants - The Basics

A search warrant is a document signed by a judge or other magistrate that authorizes the police to perform a search. If a Search Warrant is necessary and the police fail to get one, the evidence found at the scene may be suppressed and not allowed to be used to charge a crime. However, if the police do get a Search Warrant, it is important to understand the limitations of the search. The Search Warrant allows the police to search for specific materials or objects at a specific location and at a specific time. Examples of objects or materials may apply to child pornography, computer hard drives, memory storage devices, phones, laptops or other devices containing child pornography.

It is important to consider that there are exceptions to a search warrant.  These include:

• Consent searches;

• Evidence in plain view;

• Searches made in connection with an arrest;

• Emergency situations;

• Vehicle searches.

We have written about these exceptions extensively.  Click here for more.  That being said, it is standard procedure for police departments here in Minnesota with a search warrant to ask for permission to search. They are doing this because they also want consent if they can get it. If they get it, it won’t matter if the search warrant is bad.  Giving consent to search will almost certainly override the bad warrant. That being said, if they are demanding a search, you should call a Minnesota Sex Crimes lawyer immediately and ask for a lawyer to be present before you say a word.

Searching for Child Pornography

The parameters of the search must be laid out with specificity in the warrant.  The idea is that a Court should only sign a warrant if it places specific limitations on the police to conduct that search. These limitations include:

• Location specified in the warrant;

• The scope of the warrant;

• Timeline in which to search;

• People to be searched (sometimes);

• The evidence that will be found at the location.

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution requires that search warrants “particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This is important because a search warrant that is not specific enough in what it orders police to seize is unconstitutionally overbroad.  This means that this evidence that is seized may be excluded and can’t be used against a defendant.

Supressing the Results of that Search Warrant

One aspect of defending child pornography charges is digging into that search warrant to determine if it was valid. Who signed it? What information did the police rely upon? Was there sufficient information for probable cause for the police to believe that this warrant was necessary? After all, if the warrant is overly broad, it may be possible to suppress or exclude all of the evidence found as a result of the search.  In many cases, a successful suppression may result in the dismissal of all charges. It is challenging but there have been cases where the police have simply used language like “pornographic material.” This is not necessarily a crime, think adult pornography, and therefore was extraordinarily problematic to the police. The Court suppressed all evidence form the search.

“Supressing evidence from the search may be Step 1. Attacking the evidence found may be Step 2.”

If you are facing child pornography possession or distribution charges in Minnesota, know the charges that you face is important.  As important is know how to stand up and fight these charges. Considering the ramifications of a child pornography criminal conviction can do to you here in Minnesota, this is absolutely critical.

“Make sure you have an experienced sex crime attorney by your side.”

Jack Rice is a Board Certified Criminal Law Specialist, a former prosecutor and a former U.S. CIA Officer.  Jack is also the Founder of Jack Rice Defense, a boutique criminal defense firm based in St. Paul, MN who spends the majority of his practice handling criminal sexual conduct, child pornography and child solicitation cases.  Contact Jack Rice Defense for a free confidential consultation or call 651-447-7650 or 612-227-1339. Jack’s got your back.