Paul Chretien v. United States

On 5-1-18 and again on 5-4-18, Google observed and reported to NCMEC1 their observation of the same single image of potential child pornography in their cloud “Google Photos”. On 2-5- 19, over 9 months later, police applied for and received a search warrant for the premises and electronic records of Petitioner based solely upon the two observations of the same image. While the warrant included the affiant’s boilerplate assertion that “pornographers” and those with “collections” of child pornography keep such material indefinitely, there was absolutely zero evidence that Petitioner was such a “pomographer” or “collector” or that he had any “collection” of pornography. Execution of the search warrant resulted in discovery of several additional images of child pornography which resulted in Petitioner’s indictment. A motion to suppress was filed alleging that the warrant was stale. This argument was rejected, Petitioner pled to a conditional plea of guilty allowing him to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner asks this Court: 1.) Whether the Fourth Amendment allows a finding of probable cause for a search warrant for child pornography in a private home based solely, and without more, on evidence in Google Cloud photos of a single isolated image discovered 9 months previously? 2.) Where multiple additional errors affected petitioner’s conviction and/or sentence in the courts below, should this Court exercise it’s 1 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children www.ncmec.org l /C,