United States v. Steven C. Perrine
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
518 F.3d 1196 (2008)
Facts
Police learned that “stevedragonslayer” played child-pornography videos during a Yahoo! chat on September 2, 2005. Pursuant to an Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) order, Yahoo! disclosed that stevedragonslayer logged into Yahoo! from a Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox) Internet protocol (IP) address in October and November 2005. Yahoo! maintained login information for 30 days and had no information for September. Responding to another ECPA order, Cox disclosed Steven Perrine (defendant) as the subscriber associated with the logins. On December 22, police searched Perrine’s house. The search-warrant applications described the September 2 chat, Perrine’s prior child-pornography-related conviction, and the Yahoo! and Cox information. Child pornography was found on Perrine’s computer. Perrine was charged with child-pornography offenses and moved to suppress evidence allegedly seized in violation of the ECPA and Fourth Amendment. Perrine acknowledged he was stevedragonslayer and had enabled peer-to-peer file sharing on his computer. Perrine’s suppression motion was denied. Perrine was convicted. On appeal, Perrine argued that the disclosure-order applications failed to show stevedragonslayer was logged into Yahoo! on September 2 and the government used insufficiently particularized and stale information to support the search warrants.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 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.
