United States v. David Waterman Norman, Jr.
448 F. App'x 895
11th Cir.2011Background
- Norman appeals his conviction for knowingly possessing child pornography on an external hard drive in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a shared-files folder on his computer and subsequent items seized during a residence search.
- Norman argued the government used specialized software to access his shared folder without a warrant, and evidence from the home search should be excluded.
- He further contends the government failed to prove he knowingly downloaded or saved child pornography because others used the computer and a son could have transferred files to the external drive.
- The district court denied the suppression motion, and the jury found Norman guilty on the external hard drive count.
- This court reviews suppression rulings de novo and sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction under Jackson v. Virginia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the shared-folder search a Fourth Amendment violation? | Norman argues privacy expectation was violated by warrantless access. | Government asserts folder content was public and no search occurred. | No Fourth Amendment violation; no reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Was there sufficient evidence Norman knowingly possessed the child pornography on the external drive? | Norman contends the evidence shows others used the computer and transferred files. | Government shows Norman personally transferred files and admitted curiosity toward child pornography. | Yes; substantial evidence supports knowing possession on the external drive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Segura-Baltazar, 448 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2006) (establishes subjective/objective privacy test for searches)
- Epps, 613 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2010) (clarifies privacy expectation standards)
- Kyllo, 533 U.S. 27 (U.S. 2001) (distinguishes use of unique tech in searches from public-domain data)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (mixed law/fact review; de novo on law, clear error on facts)
- Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir.) (sufficiency review; reasonable basis for verdict)