United States v. Ronald Seiver, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18185

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child; sentenced to 420 months in prison.
Defendant reserved the right to appeal the search legality for purposes of challenging probable cause for the computer search.
Warrant affidavit asserted that a 13-year-old girl’s video was downloaded to the defendant’s home computer and that still images were uploaded from that computer to a website; a Facebook link to the site was sent from the same computer.
The government argued the defendant was a “collector” likely to retain or maintain the images, making seven months not stale for probable cause.
The court explains computer deleted files can be recovered and that staleness analysis must reflect modern computer technology, not older assumptions about deletion.
Court affirms the denial of the suppression challenge, finding seven months not to destroy probable cause to search the defendant’s computer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is seven months of staleness too long for probable cause to search a computer for child pornography?	Seiver argues seven months shows staleness; deleted files may be gone.	Seiver contends collector behavior could retain evidence; seven months may exhaust probable cause.	No; seven months not too stale to search.
Does deleting files eliminate possession or undermine probable cause in computer searches?	Deleted files imply no possession and weakens probable cause.	Deleted files can be recovered; deletion does not erase past possession or likelihood of retention.	Deletion alone does not defeat probable cause.
Should warrants for computer searches require magistrates to know deleted files are recoverable?	Affidavits should alert magistrates that deleted files can be recovered.	Prudence is wise but not required; knowledge of recovery is common knowledge.	Not required to validate the warrant.
Is the fear of rapid dissipation of computer evidence overstated in probable-cause analysis?	Computers retain files and can rapidly lose data; staleness is real.	Computers do not rapidly dissipate evidence; deletion can be reversible.	Staleness less likely to defeat probable cause for computer searches.

United States v. Pappas, 592 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2010) (probable-cause framework for computer searches in child-pornography cases)
United States v. Prideaux-Wentz, 543 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2008) (staleness considerations in computer search warrants)
United States v. Estey, 595 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (collectors and retention as context for staleness)
United States v. Lemon, 590 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 2010) (staleness and computer-forensics considerations)
United States v. Potts, 586 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 2009) (collector theory and retention of digital evidence)
United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2009) (digital evidence retention and probable cause)
United States v. Morales-Aldahondo, 524 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2008) (possession and retention of digital material)
United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause in computer searches for child pornography)
United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (computer-search probable-cause standards)
United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2010) (recovery of deleted files and possession concepts)
United States v. Flyer, 633 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2011) (recoverability of deleted files and investigative standards)
United States v. Kain, 589 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2009) (possession and statute-of-limitations considerations)
United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2010) (computers not the type of evidence that rapidly dissipates)