United States v. Conrad, No. 10-2001 (7th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseWhile the FBI executed a search warrant at his father’s business, officers looked for defendant at his father’s house. They climbed to the deck and, through a window, saw defendant asleep, with a pill bottle nearby. They telephoned the father and stated, incorrectly, that the bottle was next to defendant. The father gave permission to enter. Officers woke defendant and began questioning. He stated he had child pornography on a laptop in his car and agreed to provide evidence from his apartment, though agents told him that he did not have to do so. Driving to the apartment with officers, he used his cell phone. His father told him not to talk. After entering the apartment, agents read defendant his Miranda rights. He admitted operating a server for child pornography, having pornography on his computer, and transferring child pornography to an external drive. He signed consent forms, after being advised that he could refuse the search. The district court suppressed evidence and statements obtained in the father's home and car ride, but did not suppress evidence obtained at the apartment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Apartment evidence was sufficiently attenuated from the original illegal entry that it was purged of unconstitutional taint.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.