United States v. Macomber

67 M.J. 214 (2009)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Macomber

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
67 M.J. 214 (2009)

  • Written by Sharon Feldman, JD

Facts

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent was notified that Edward Macomber (defendant) had been identified as a subscriber to a child-pornography website. The agent contacted the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and a joint investigation was conducted. A letter from the fictional company Eclipse Films was sent to Macomber asking that he complete a sexual-interest questionnaire. Macomber listed teen and preteen sex as interests, indicated that he was interested in buying pornography, and returned the questionnaire. Macomber was sent a letter describing the available videos and an order form. Macomber sent back an order for two child-pornography videos, included a money order, and listed his address as his Air Force base dormitory room. The agents prepared an affidavit for authority to search Macomber’s dormitory room. The affidavit stated that Macomber had subscribed to a child-pornography website, Macomber had indicated an interest in teen and preteen sex, and Macomber had attempted to order videos containing child pornography. The affidavit also included pedophile profile information and stated that child pornographers typically maintain child-pornography materials in secure locations in their immediate control, most often their personal bedrooms. Macomber was arrested when he picked up the package containing the videos he believed he had ordered from Eclipse Films. The agents searched Macomber’s dormitory room and found printed materials and photos, notes made by Macomber regarding child-pornography websites, and child-pornography images on Macomber’s computer. Macomber was charged with receipt and wrongful possession of child pornography. The military judge denied Macomber’s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his dormitory room. Macomber pled guilty to receipt of child pornography and was convicted of wrongful possession of child pornography. The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. On appeal, Macomber challenged the ruling that there was probable cause to search his room. Macomber argued that absent a statement that he fit the pedophile profile described in the affidavit, there was no basis to believe that child pornography would be stored in his room.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Baker, J.)

Dissent (Ryan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 797,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership