United States v. Beckmann, No. 14-3086 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseBeckmann, convicted for possession of child pornography in 2001, was visited for a routine compliance check. Beckmann consented to a search of a laptop, visible on a table. While Deputy Barbato searched the laptop, Beckmann showed Deputy Thebeau the rest of the residence. Thebeau alerted Barbato that there was another computer upstairs. While Thebeau used a washroom, Barbato looked into the office where Beckmann went. He saw a computer desk with a monitor, with Beckmann underneath working with cords. Beckmann seemed startled at seeing Barbato and consented to have Barbato look at the computer. Barbato saw a computer tower and two external hard drives underneath the desk. Barbato plugged the power cord to the external drive back into the wall and searched the computer, including the external drives. He did not get specific consent to search the external drives or to plug the external drive back into the wall; he considered them part of the “computer” because they were plugged into the computer. Barbato discovered file names suggesting child pornography. Beckmann pled guilty to possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B), and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment plus a lifetime of supervised release, and ordered to pay $9,000 of restitution. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, upholding denials of motions to suppress evidence
Court Description: Harpool, Author, with Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Where defendant gave the police permission to search his computer, the deputy's belief that the consent included consent to search a hard drive connected to the computer was not objectively unreasonable; nor did the deputy exceed the scope of the consent when he plugged the drive into a wall socket to power it up; even assuming the government failed to comply with the due date of execution stated in the warrant, and further assuming such a delay violates Rule 41, the government did not exhibit reckless disregard for proper procedure in light of the length of time typically required to conduct computer analyses in child pornography cases; while the better practice would be to file a motion for additional time to execute the warrant, the officers' failure to do so does not warrant suppression; delay in returning the warrant was inadvertent and not the result of a deliberate and intentional disregard of the rules; no error in the order restitution of $9,000 to known victims depicted in the child pornography, as the court applied the Supreme Court's guidelines in Paroline v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 1710 (2014), and the awards are similar to those made around the country. [ May 14, 2015
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.