Comments

Oral Argument Preview: Limiting the Exclusionary Rule. State v. Gould. — 2 Comments

  1. The difficulty with decisions of this nature is the lack of guidance for judges hearing the cases. One judge’s opinion of gross and negligent conduct may not rise to the level of the next judge or vice versa. This leads to the continued uncertainty practicing attorneys face on a daily basis.

    • IMLO, the CA-6 is correct and its judgment should be affirmed.

      What is the problem understanding “not to allow anyone else to have it.” ? Anyone else includes the police, trash collector, et al.
      What operative facts allow the mother to suspect child pornography?
      What operative facts allow the mother to believe her son abandoned the drive?

      Did Detective Lester leave a voice message with Gould, “Hi. I’m Detective Lester and I want to discuss your hard drive that your mother gave me because she suspects that it contains child pornography and she believes that you abandoned it. Please give me a ring so that we can chat about it.

      When Lester-Gould contact failed, why not dash to an attorney with ALL the facts and ask to get a warrant?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      My emphasis:
      Easterwood informed Detective Gina Lester that Gould had given her the hard drive and that he had instructed Easterwood not to allow anyone else to have it.

      Easterwood told the detective that she suspected the hard drive contained child pornography and that she believed Gould had abandoned the hard drive.

      After the detective tried unsuccessfully for months to contact Gould, Gould’s mother gave her consent to search the hard drive, which was found to contain child pornography.