Facts
- Federal investigators identified Senior Airman Edward Macomber as a subscriber to a child-pornography website and coordinated with Air Force investigators.
- Investigators ran a sting using a fictitious company that mailed Macomber a sexual-interest questionnaire and later an order form for videos described as containing child pornography.
- Macomber returned the questionnaire indicating interest in “teen and preteen sex,” ordered two described videos, paid by money order, and listed his on-base dormitory room as the shipping address.
- Investigators sought and obtained search authorization for Macomber’s dorm room; the supporting affidavit described the subscription information, Macomber’s responses, the attempted order to his dorm address, and generalized information that child-pornography collectors often keep such materials in secure locations under their control, commonly bedrooms.
- After Macomber picked up the package, investigators executed the dorm-room search and recovered child-pornography-related documents and images, including digital images on his computer.
- Macomber was charged under Article 134, UCMJ, with receipt and wrongful possession of child pornography.
Issues
- Whether the issuing authority had a substantial basis to find probable cause to search Macomber’s dormitory room based on the affidavit’s facts and inferences, including generalized collector “profile” information.
Decision
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held the search authorization was supported by probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.
- The court concluded the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between suspected child-pornography offenses and Macomber’s dorm room, particularly because he directed delivery of the contraband there.
- The court rejected the claim that the affidavit had to expressly state Macomber matched the collector “profile” for that information to be considered.
- The denial of the motion to suppress was affirmed, as were the lower court’s decision and the findings and sentence.
Legal Principles
- Probable cause is assessed under the totality of the circumstances; the question is whether there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.
- On review, courts give substantial deference to the issuing authority and ask only whether there was a substantial basis for the probable-cause determination.
- A valid search authorization requires a reasonable nexus between the suspected criminal activity and the specific place to be searched; the nexus may be shown through commonsense inferences from concrete facts.
- Behavioral or “profile” information may corroborate other facts supporting probable cause, but probable cause does not depend on an explicit statement that the suspect matches every element of a profile.
Conclusion
The court upheld a dorm-room search for child pornography where the affidavit tied the location to the offense through the accused’s delivery instructions and related conduct; generalized collector-profile statements could reinforce, but did not need to independently establish, the required nexus and probable cause.