U.S. v. Falso
From Judgepedia
U.S. v. Falso 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) is a case involving the legality of evidence obtained in a home search without probable cause necessary for obtaining a warrant.[1]Background
The plaintiff, Falso, faced 242 counts related to possession of child pornography and traveling with an intent to have illicit conduct with minors. After an extensive online investigation, the police tied the plaintiff to a website involving 11 pornographic pictures of children. Though there was some dispute as to whether the plaintiff was a subscriber to the website, or merely a recipient of spam mail, the police obtained a warrant based on another piece of evidence: the plaintiff had an 18-year old conviction involivng sexual abuse of a minor. Noting the correlation between internet searches of child pornography and the possession of child pornography, the police obtained a warrant to search the plaintiff's residence, where the police found enough child pornography to sentence the plaintiff to 30 years in prison. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the evidence was obtained without probable cause and was therefore tainted or inadmissible.[2]
Fourth Amendment
The principal issue in this case is whether the police violated the plaintiff's Fourt Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, especially involving residences. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The police need probable cause and a warrant prior to searching and seizing any evidence inside a residence. Here, Judge Sotomayor held that the police did not have probable cause because there were no allegations that Falso actually possessed child pornography or subscribted to any child-pornogrpahy website. The suspicions were too speculative, the court held. Also, concerning Falso's past crimes, the court held that the correlation was not strong enough: "Although offenses relating to child pornogrpahy and sexual abuse of minors both involve the exploitation of children, that does not compel, or even support, the correlation drawn by the district court."[3]
Good Faith Exception
Generally, evidence obtained without probable cause necessary for conducting a search and seizure is inadmissible. It is tainted. However, when the police obtain a warrant from a judge--a warrant that is later invalidated--evidence may still be permitted as long as the police had a good faith reliance on the warrant. This is the good faith exception to otherwise inadmissible evidence. So long as the police reasonable believed that the warrant was valid, any evidence obtained in a search and seizure is admissible. Here, the court permitted the evidence and therefore affirmed the ruling of the lower court.[4]
