United States v. Raymonda
780 F.3d 105
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- In Jan 2011, ICE agents found a website (coollib.org) hosting thumbnail images of child pornography; server logs for Jan 16, 2011 showed an IP address requested 76 thumbnail images (GET requests).
- Time Warner identified that IP address in July 2011 as belonging to James Raymonda at a Buffalo address; agents applied for a search warrant on Oct 27, 2011 and executed it Nov 8, 2011.
- Affiant Agent Ouzer’s warrant affidavit described the 76 GET requests as access to child-pornography thumbnails, included boilerplate about collectors who hoard images, but did not attach the full IP log or state that the GETs occurred within a 17‑second span.
- Search of Raymonda’s home yielded over 1,000 child‑pornography files and an admission; Raymonda was indicted on receipt and possession charges.
- Raymonda moved to suppress, arguing the nine‑month‑old IP evidence was stale and that Ouzer’s affidavit contained misleading/exaggerated statements; the district court suppressed and found the agent grossly negligent.
- The Second Circuit held the affidavit did not establish probable cause (staleness/insufficient sign of a collector) but reversed suppression because agents reasonably relied in good faith on the magistrate’s warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staleness / Probable cause to search for child pornography | Raymonda: single, nine‑month‑old incident of thumbnail GETs is stale and equally consistent with inadvertent access; no evidence he is a collector. | Government: collectors hoard images; propensity supports inference files remained after nine months. | Held: No probable cause — single old thumbnail access without indicia of deliberate collection is insufficient. |
| Good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule | Raymonda: Ouzer’s misleading statements/omissions and awareness of a similar suppression decision (Coon) show gross negligence; exclusion warranted. | Government: magistrate independently found probable cause; Ouzer’s errors were not intentional or grossly negligent so good‑faith applies. | Held: Good‑faith exception applies — errors not deliberate/reckless/grossly negligent; evidence not suppressed. |
| Characterization of IP logs (material misstatement/omission) | Raymonda: affidavit misstated that user viewed 76 images and omitted 17‑second span; these were material and misleading. | Government: language about "accessed"/"viewed" was a reasonable (if imprecise) interpretation of GETs; omission of time span not grossly negligent. | Held: Misstatements/omissions did not rise to gross negligence or deliberate falsehood; not a basis to deny good‑faith. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause totality‑of‑circumstances test)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule and limits of deterrence)
- United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (mere access to non‑membership site insufficient for probable cause)
- United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2005) (membership in child‑porn group supports collector inference)
- United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (collector propensity relevant to staleness in child‑porn cases)
- United States v. Coreas, 419 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2005) (collector inference requires probable cause that suspect is a collector)
- United States v. Wagner, 989 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1993) (staleness framework)