United States v. Grosenheider

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that independent source doctrine “permits the introduction of unlawfully discovered evidence when the police have acquired [it] through a distinct, untainted source”
• holding that the district court’s finding that the defendant had no “inclination, predisposition, or tendency” to abuse a child did not “suffice to take his case out of the heartland” of child- pornography possession cases and thus warrant a downward departure
• noting that the district court must “find that the agents would have sought the warrant even if [the illegal conduct] had never taken place.”
• noting that “the holding [in Place] is inapposite here because there was probable cause from the inception of the computer’s detention, and the four or five hour duration of the detention until the warrant was procured was plainly reasonable”
• delineating the differences between the various offenses and sentences involving child pornogra- phy
• characterizing “the two doctrines” as “two sides of the same coin” because “inevitable discovery is no more than ‘an extrapolation’ of the independent source doctrine” (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 539 (1988)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).