United States v. William Conner
521 F. App'x 493
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Conner was convicted on four counts of receipt and one count of possession related to child pornography; sentence 360 months total.
- LimeWire allowed direct file transfers; files are shared in a public pool unless concealed.
- Penwell identified a LimeWire computer publicly sharing child pornography, downloaded files, obtained IP and GUID, and secured warrants.
- Forensic analysis showed LimeWire-sourced files stored in shared, downloadable folders; GUID matched Penwell’s target.
- Conner reinstalled OS and limited attempts to wipe data, but evidence showed extensive LimeWire sharing and public accessibility.
- A suppression motion challenging Penwell’s LimeWire-based search was denied; district court sentenced Conner within the Guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in LimeWire-shared files | Conner argues Warshak controls; third parties access implies privacy | Conner contends privacy exists in personal files despite LimeWire access | No reasonable expectation of privacy in publicly shareable LimeWire files |
| Whether the 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) distribution enhancement applies | Knowledge not required; LimeWire use suffices for distribution | Enhancement requires knowing distribution of material | Knowing use of LimeWire satisfies distribution enhancement |
| Whether a reduction under 2G2.2(b)(1) was appropriate | Restriction applies if conduct limited to receipt, not exploitation | Offense conduct involved exploitation, not limited receipt | Reduction not warranted; conduct involved exploitation of minors |
Key Cases Cited
- Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (tests reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz framework)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (defined reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (emails' privacy protections not defeated by ISP access; not controlling here)
- United States v. Ganoe, 538 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008) (no privacy in LimeWire-accessible files; presumption of distribution)
- United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in peer-to-peer sharing files)
- United States v. Bolton, 669 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2012) (applies knowing-use standard for 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) enhancement)
- United States v. Dodd, 598 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses presumed knowledge of file-sharing distribution)
- United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizes distribution-related enhancements for file sharing)
- United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses scope of distribution-related enhancements)
- United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (no privacy protection when sharing files via P2P)