United States v. Paul Pavulak

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that officer relied in good faith upon warrant and noting that \the affidavit’s allegations would have been sufficient in the Eighth Circuit at the time\
• holding that officer relied in good faith upon warrant and noting that “the affidavit’s allegations would have been sufficient in the Eighth Circuit at the time”
• concluding that the relevant prior state convictions “relat[e] to the sexual exploitation of children” but not defining the substantive term
• holding that in order to allow an issuing court to independently evaluate whether images meet the legal definition of child pornography, “(1) the [issuing court] can personally view the images; (2
• holding that in order to allow an issuing court to 15 independently evaluate whether images meet the legal definition of child pornography, “(1) the [issuing court] can personally view the images; (2
• explaining that “[t]he label ‘child pornography,’ without more, does not present any facts from which the [issuing court] could discern a fair probability that what is depicted in the images meets the statutory definition of child pornography” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).