Unformatted text preview: s explicitly suggested that a search warrant would be unnecessary. [FN4]
On February 5, 2001, Reavis delivered to Agent Kennedy Ziegler's computer tower
(containing the original hard drive) and one of the hard drive copies made by Schneider
and Softich. Schneider delivered the second copy sometime later. Forensic examiners at
the FBI discovered many images of child pornography.
FN4. Agent Kennedy explained that this cooperation was the reason he did not pursue a
search warrant. He testified, "At this point, counselor, everybody at Frontline Processing
is telling me they're going to cooperate, so I'm not going to go in and start serving search
warrants on a company if they're going to cooperate. I have no desire to do that."
On May 23, 2003, a federal grand jury handed down a three-count indictment charging
Ziegler with receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2);
possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B); and receipt 80 of obscene material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462. [FN5] At arraignment, Ziegler
entered a plea of not guilty.
FN5. No explanation appears in the record for the two year, three month interval between
delivery of the computer to the FBI and issuance of the indictment. In any event, Ziegler
does not raise any issue regarding such delay.
Ziegler filed several pretrial motions. At issue here is Ziegler's April 23, 2004, motion to
suppress the evidence obtained from the search of Ziegler's workplace computer. Ziegler
argued that Agent Kennedy, lacking a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment by
directing the Frontline employees to search his computer. The government argued that
the search was voluntary and therefore private in nature.
On August 10, 2004, the district court held a suppression hearing at which Agent
Kennedy and Schneider testified. [FN6] Agent Kennedy, several times, denied that he
instructed Softich and Schneider to make a copy of Ziegler's hard drive or to undertake
any search in addition to what the employees had already done. Schneider...
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Summary judgment