As child pornography prosecutions have become more visible in Southern California courts, Los Angeles Criminal Lawyers should be aware of a recent decision in this area.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the seizure of child pornography and other evidence of an elderly man Tagged as: child pornography pc 311_11

Comments:

Lauren Ransdell Com 174 on December 2, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. wrote: This is a case where we have to decide whether or not a technicality is enough to have evidence excluded in a trial. I think the judge was correct in saying that we have to weigh the seriousness of the crime when considering whether or not the man's privacy was violated. Should we really be concerned that his privacy was violated when he has been breaking American law for over 20 years and robbing innocent children of their innocence? NO! I think the judge was correct when ruling that an airport is the equivalent to a border inspection. As long as the man was aware that his package might be searched, I think he gave himself the opportunity to be caught and his privacy taken away. It seems that everything else, the miranda rights and search warrant were done properly, and with those they got a confession and evidence in his home. I do think that justice was served. Kelsey Claire (Comm. 174) on November 24, 2008 at 6 p.m. wrote: I agree with Christine that although it took several years to convict this man, I think this is an excellent example of how our criminal justice system does work. This case reminds me of Pizzi's argument that we in the United States are so focused on procedure in this Country that we forget the substance. Pizzi argues that our system is too technical, claiming that there is too many ways for evidence to be exclusionary, meaning there will be a way to prevent evidence from coming into cour, such as when police carry out a search and seaizure that violates the 4th ammendment. However, this case seems to somewhat contradict Pizzi's argument. The trial judge did not allow for the defendant to make a mockery out of criminal justice system. It seems that the case maybe that when we exclude evidance it is in fact for sound reasons. This case proves that this Country is not overly focused on technicality and that although anyone can argue for a case to be thrown out on such claims, many do not succeed. Nicole Forde on November 22, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. wrote: This case exemplifies Pizzi Christine Paik Comm 174 on November 22, 2008 at 4:33 a.m. wrote: I found this case to be a pleasing example of when our criminal justice system is successful. Although it took several years too long for this man to be sentenced for his crimes, I feel that much of that was beyond anybody's control--even though U.S. Customs workers found the illicit letters and money, that would, logically speaking, not necessarily automatically mean that this man is doing anything beyond that. The fact that the proper steps were taken to receive warrants before further invading the man's privacy by entering his home and etc., is what led to his successful sentencing. As we have been reading in Pizzi's book, too many trials which receive verdicts agreed upon by both jury and judge, are overturned and the defendant acquitted, because of some trivial trial error. That fortunately did not happen in this case because of the caution that was undertaken in investigating and prosecuting this man. I am glad that the Court ruled in favor of the prosecution and did not approve of the defendant's defense against his privacy. The Court's acknowledgment that his privacy had been intruded upon but the degree to which this occurred was important shows that at least to some degree, the Court does have some flexibility and is not so procedurally limited that they would allow an obvious pedophile to run free. Araksya Boyadzhyan on November 21, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. wrote: I believe that there are certain acts which cause widespread disgust and disapproval by almost everyone in society, and I believe child pornography is one of them. When it comes to the endangerment of children we have no sympathy towards the criminals. I suppose that it is somewhat for this intolerance of acts involving children that the Courts decided to rule against the defendant. Whatever the reason, I believe their ruling was justified. When you sign a waiver acknowledging that someone can search an item of yours you forfeit your privacy of the things in that package. It