United States v. Gene Schave, 55 F.4th 671

Microsoft Bing-generated Cybertips flagged eight child‑exploitation images tied to four IP addresses registered to Paul Sutton at a Como Avenue residence in Minneapolis.
Residents included Sutton and Gene Paul Schave; Sutton had a prior child‑molestation conviction and Schave had a prior conviction for possession of child pornography.
Officer Hanson obtained a state warrant to search the Como residence; execution uncovered a tablet with thousands of child‑pornography images plugged in inside the nightstand next to Schave’s bed.
Schave was indicted for possession of child pornography; he moved to suppress the search evidence and objected to extensive Rule 414 propensity evidence at trial.
The district court denied suppression and admitted most Rule 414 evidence; a jury convicted Schave. He appealed the suppression ruling and the admission/balance of Rule 414/403 evidence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it rejected the particularity and nexus challenges to the warrant and held any Rule 414/403 error was harmless given overwhelming non‑propensity evidence tying Schave to the tablet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrant particularity & scope	Schave: warrant unlawfully authorized search of whole residence; should have been limited to Sutton’s room	Government: address‑level warrant was reasonable because multiple IPs were linked to the physical address, multiple residents used the internet, and prior convictions made residence a likely locus of evidence	Warrant satisfied Fourth Amendment particularity; search of residence permissible
Nexus & probable cause	Schave: insufficient nexus because IPs were registered to Sutton and Hanson should have further investigated access	Government: multiple flagged images tied to IPs registered to the address, plus Schave’s prior conviction and co‑residency provided a reasonable probability evidence would be on devices in the house	Sufficient nexus existed; probable cause supported the warrant
Admission of Rule 414 propensity evidence & Rule 403 balancing	Schave: testimony about prior molestations was highly detailed and inflammatory, producing undue prejudice beyond admissible propensity proof	Government: prior molestation, prior child‑porn possession, and similar content were probative of sexual interest and propensity under Rule 414; district court mitigated prejudice with instructions and some exclusions	Admission was within discretion though testimony was graphic; any error in the balancing was harmless given overwhelming evidence tying Schave to the tablet

United States v. Maccani, 49 F.4th 1126 (practical accuracy governs warrant particularity)
United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338 (consider purpose, items, and total circumstances when assessing particularity)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (scope limits when premises are divided into separate units)
United States v. Green, 954 F.3d 1119 (nexus supported where account/IP linked to searched address)
United States v. LeCompte, 131 F.3d 767 (legislative judgment favors admission of prior sexual‑offense evidence)
United States v. Emmert, 825 F.3d 906 (Rule 414 relevance where prior abuse mirrors charged material)
United States v. Luger, 837 F.3d 870 (prior conviction probative if similar to charged offense)
United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433 (cautions against inflammatory testimonial detail beyond official conviction records)
United States v. Petroske, 928 F.3d 767 (harmless‑error test for evidentiary rulings)