People v. Shinohara
Illinois Appellate Court
872 N.E.2d 498 (2007)
Facts
The police responded to a call from Yoshiaki Shinohara (defendant) to have a 17-year-old female removed from his home. Shinohara and the female were interviewed at the police station. The female told the police that Shinohara had raped her and taken digital images and movies of her naked and the two of them engaging in sex acts. Shinohara acknowledged that he had the digital images and movies on his computer. Shinohara consented to have the police look at the images on his computer. Shinohara’s computer was seized and inventoried on August 24, 2001. The state police forensic crime unit obtained a search warrant for the computer on November 7, 2001. The forensic examination of the computer was completed on January 10, 2002, and the state attorney concluded on January 29, 2002, that some of the images recovered from Shinohara’s computer depicted child pornography. Shinohara was charged with and convicted of child pornography based on the images found on his computer. On appeal, Shinohara argued that even if the police had probable cause to seize his computer, the police violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because the police did not obtain a search warrant until 75 days after the computer was seized.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Frossard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
