United States v. McManaman, No. 11-1771 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of children. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements and physical evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress because of the inevitable discovery doctrine. Because the court found that the evidence was admissible pursuant to that doctrine, defendant's constitutional violation arguments were moot and the court need not consider them on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Defendant is collaterally estopped from contesting the inevitable discovery issues already addressed in his original gun and drugs conviction; the child pornography which formed the basis for this conviction would have been found and seized even if a warrant had been limited to a search for firearms and ammunition and drugs; as a result, the district court did not err in finding the pornography was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine.
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.