## Facts

- Defendant called police to remove G.M., a 17-year-old female, from his apartment; police observed significant disarray and words “Rape” and “Rapist” written on a wall.
- Defendant and G.M. were taken to the police station, where G.M. alleged defendant sexually assaulted her and recorded digital images and videos of sexual activity.
- Defendant admitted he had digital images and movies of G.M. on his home computer and consented to police viewing images on the computer.
- Police seized and inventoried the computer on August 24, 2001.
- A search warrant for the computer was obtained on November 7, 2001 (about 75 days after seizure); forensic examination was completed January 10, 2002; prosecutors later concluded some recovered images constituted child pornography.
- Defendant was charged with five counts of child pornography based on images recovered from the computer.
- A jury convicted defendant on all counts; the trial court entered judgment on all five, merged counts II–V into count I for sentencing, and imposed intensive probation and community service on count I.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless seizure and continued retention of the computer, including the 75-day delay in obtaining a search warrant, was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether alleged noncompliance with statutory warrant-execution requirements required suppression.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony and other evidence, including evidence and argument concerning G.M., alleged sexual assault, and related images.
4. Whether the jury instruction defining “lewd” was erroneous and prejudicial.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove child pornography beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court upheld the denial of the motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence.
- The court held the seizure and retention of the computer, including the delay in obtaining a warrant, was reasonable under the circumstances.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings or prosecutorial comment.
- The court found no reversible error in the instruction defining “lewd.”
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment governs both an initial seizure of property and the duration of law enforcement’s retention of the property before seeking a warrant; the inquiry is fact-specific under the totality of circumstances.
- A delay in obtaining a search warrant for seized property is not per se unconstitutional; the court evaluates whether the delay was justified in light of investigative needs and the circumstances surrounding the seizure.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; relevant evidence may be admitted if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- Jury instructions warrant reversal only when they misstate the law or mislead the jury in a manner that affects the verdict.
- Sufficiency of the evidence is assessed by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asking whether a rational trier of fact could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed defendant’s child pornography conviction, holding that the computer’s seizure and continued retention—despite a 75-day delay before obtaining a warrant—was reasonable under the circumstances, and rejecting claims of evidentiary error, instructional error, and insufficient proof.


People v. Shinohara, 375 Ill. App. 3d 85, 872 N.E.2d 498 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)