United States v. Miknevich

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the magistrate judge “could have drawn a reasonable inference of the file’s contents based on its highly descriptive name and [hash] value”
• emphasizing that on appeal, the defendant bears the burden under this analysis where he fails to raise the Eighth Amendment argument at trial
• evaluating an affidavit that described a movie as depicting “children, under the age of eighteen years old engaged in sexual acts and/or poses” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• evaluating an affidavit that described a movie as depicting “children, under the age of eighteen years old engaged in sexual acts and/or poses” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• upholding the validity of a warrant affidavit based on a single file name because “[t]he unmistakable inference arising from [the] highly descriptive file name is that the file’s contents include material pertaining to the sexual exploitation of children”
• graphic file name plus the officer’s statement that the file’s SHA-1 value was associated with “child pornography” established probable cause

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).