## Facts

- A father reported to police that Jon Burnett had filmed the father’s two sons (ages nine and 12) while the boys were naked and had engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct toward them.
- Police interviewed Burnett. Burnett admitted videotaping the boys but claimed he had deleted the recording.
- Burnett consented to a search of the room he rented in his parents’ house.
- During the consent search, police found a video camera and a videotape that contained a recording matching the father’s description of the two naked boys. Police seized the camera and tape.
- Police then sought a warrant to search the entire residence, including another search of Burnett’s room.
- The warrant application relied largely on general statements based on officers’ training and experience that people who videotape children commonly possess and share child pornography.
- The application did not include particularized facts showing that Burnett possessed child pornography or that such material would likely be found on computer media in the home.
- A warrant issued, and during the warrant search police seized Burnett’s computer and multiple diskettes.
- A forensic examination showed the diskettes had previously contained child pornography images, but the images had been deleted. The examiner could not determine when the images had been downloaded or deleted, or by whom.
- Burnett was charged with and convicted of possession of child pornography.
- On appeal, Burnett challenged the warrant as unsupported by probable cause and also argued the evidence did not prove he knowingly possessed the deleted images, claiming he bought the diskettes at an online auction and a prior owner could have been responsible.

## Issues

1. Whether the search warrant authorizing seizure and search of Burnett’s computer and diskettes was supported by probable cause when the affidavit offered only generalized assertions that persons who videotape children often also possess child pornography, without case-specific facts tying Burnett to such material.
2. If the warrant lacked probable cause, whether the evidence obtained from the computer media should have been suppressed, requiring reversal of Burnett’s conviction.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the warrant was not supported by probable cause because the affidavit failed to establish a sufficient factual link between the reported conduct (videotaping nude children) and the likelihood that child pornography would be found in the residence or on computer media.
- The court concluded that generalized, experience-based statements about what such offenders “typically” possess were not enough, standing alone, to justify the broad warrant search and seizure of computer equipment.
- Because the conviction depended on evidence obtained during the warrant search (the computer media and related forensic findings), the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with suppression of the unlawfully obtained evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause for a search warrant requires particularized facts establishing a fair probability that specific contraband or evidence will be found in the place to be searched.
- A warrant affidavit must show a meaningful nexus between (1) the suspected criminal activity and (2) the items sought and the location to be searched.
- Boilerplate assertions based on officers’ training and experience about what certain offenders often possess cannot substitute for case-specific facts showing that the targeted evidence is likely present.
- Evidence obtained from a search conducted under a warrant lacking probable cause is subject to suppression, and a conviction dependent on that evidence cannot stand.

## Conclusion

Burnett’s case turned on whether police had a factual basis to expand from a consent search that found a videotape of nude children to a broad warrant search for child pornography on computer media. Because the warrant affidavit relied on generalizations rather than particularized facts linking Burnett to child pornography, the appellate court found no probable cause, required suppression of the seized computer-related evidence, and reversed the resulting possession conviction.


Burnett v. State, 848 So. 2d 1170 (2003)