AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• During an investigation into the distribution of child pornography on an ultra-peer internet site, law enforcement determined that a computer at the defendants' home was linked to this site. A search warrant was issued, and during the search, a digital camera containing illegal images was seized. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the camera, arguing it was seized without probable cause.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that defendants lacked standing to challenge the seizure of the camera, the seizure was supported by probable cause, and certain testimony and out-of-court statements should not be excluded.
• Defendants: Contended they had standing to challenge the seizure, the camera was seized without probable cause, and the evidence obtained should be suppressed.

Legal Issues

• Whether defendants had standing to challenge the seizure of the digital camera.
• Whether there was probable cause to seize the digital camera during the execution of the search warrant.
• Whether certain testimony and out-of-court statements should be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence obtained from the digital camera and to exclude certain testimony and out-of-court statements.

Reasons

• The court found that the defendants had standing to challenge the seizure of the camera, as they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home where the camera was found. The court also concluded that there was no probable cause to seize the camera, as the affidavit for the search warrant did not provide sufficient evidence that the camera was connected to the alleged crimes. The court agreed with the district court's decision to suppress certain testimony and out-of-court statements, finding them tainted by the illegal seizure of the camera (paras 7-29).