A child pornography investigation can begin by the police analyzing internet traffic, investigating a tip from an informant, or searching a computer for an unrelated matter. Regardless of how an investigation begins, people have a Constitutional right to privacy in their computer files and electronic devices. Police often use sophisticated forensic tools to search computers, phones, and electronic devices in child pornography cases. However, there are strict requirements and limitations on search warrants for computers. If police violated your right to privacy during a search, you may be able to exclude the evidence from being used against you.
Gibson Law Office defends child pornography cases aggressively by carefully analyzing the State’s forensic processes:
- Did police have a valid search warrant based on probable cause?
- Was the warrant only supported by unreliable hearsay?
- Was the search warrant overly broad?
- If there were encrypted files, did police have a valid warrant to review those files?
In some circumstances, investigators must obtain a second warrant if the first warrant was not supported by probable cause to search encrypted files. Digital data will often not meet the “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement during a computer search for child pornography.
If you are arrested on child pornography charges, you should never give a statement without an attorney present. Police are trained to interrogate people when they are scared to coerce incriminating statements. Can the State prove who actually downloaded the files? Did others have access to the electronic devices? You should remain silent and demand to speak to an attorney. It is important to force the State to produce all of their evidence before making any statements. An Indiana criminal attorney experienced in defending child pornography cases can attack the evidence and the procedures used by police.
