United States v. James Carroll, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8109

Background

In 2012 a 13-year-old reported being molested by James V. Carroll (events alleged to have occurred when she was eight) and that Carroll photographed her and showed digital images of other young children partially undressed.
Detective Kurt Spivey applied for and obtained a warrant to search Carroll’s residence for computers, storage media, and photography equipment; the affidavit described Spivey’s training about child-pornography collectors’ tendency to retain and hide images and noted prior recovery of five‑year‑old images in other cases.
Police executed the warrant and found numerous sexually explicit images of the victim on Carroll’s computer and other media; Carroll made incriminating statements during the investigation and subsequent interviews.
Carroll was charged with possession of child pornography and multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a child; he pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
Carroll moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit’s information was stale (approximately five years old), and the district court denied suppression, finding probable cause (and alternatively invoking the good‑faith exception).
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the affidavit sufficiently established a fair probability that digital evidence would be found despite the elapsed time.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit was stale such that it failed to establish probable cause to search Carroll’s residence	The government argued the affidavit—showing production of images and facts supporting likely retention and recoverability—gave a fair probability evidence remained on digital media	Carroll argued the five‑year gap rendered the information stale and undermined any fair probability that the images remained on devices in his home	The court held the affidavit was not stale: collector "hoarding" behavior, Carroll’s role as producer, recoverability of deleted files, and other facts supported probable cause
Whether Seiver’s computer‑file reasoning applied	Government relied on Seiver to show deleted digital files can persist and be recovered, extending the useful life of the information	Carroll argued Seiver didn’t apply because the affidavit didn’t show computer use at time of offense and cameras have limited storage that overwrites quickly	The court held Seiver applied: affidavit supported inference Carroll used computers and thumb drives, so recoverability analysis was appropriate
Whether the good‑faith exception was required to be reached	Government argued issuing judge’s probable‑cause determination warranted deference; alternatively good‑faith would apply	Carroll contended lack of probable cause foreclosed reliance on the warrant	Court did not reach the good‑faith issue because it found substantial basis for probable cause and affirmed on that ground
Whether Prideaux‑Wentz compelled suppression	Carroll relied on Prideaux‑Wentz (four‑year gap found stale) to argue his five‑year gap required suppression	Government distinguished Prideaux‑Wentz based on producer status, irreplaceability of images, near‑contemporaneous warrant application, and affidavit details about computer/media use	Court found Prideaux‑Wentz distinguishable and declined to adopt a bright‑line rule; probable cause existed here

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Prideaux‑Wentz, 543 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2008) (addressing staleness where multi‑year gap and lack of specific upload dates weighed against probable cause)
United States v. Seiver, 692 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining deleted computer files often remain recoverable and staleness is less likely to defeat a warrant to search computers)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances standard for probable cause to issue warrants)
United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2007) (endorsing that child‑pornography collectors tend to hoard images)