Search and Seizure in Child Pornography Investigations

Search and seizure law is the foundation of every child pornography prosecution. Most cases rise or fall on whether police respected constitutional limits when collecting digital evidence. The Law Office of Tara Breslow represents clients in Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, Middlesex and Warren counties and across New Jersey who are under investigation or facing charges stemming from computer, phone, or cloud searches. Attorney Tara Breslow, a seasoned criminal defense lawyer, brings a precise understanding of how digital evidence must be obtained, preserved, and analyzed under state and federal law.

When investigators violate the Fourth Amendment or New Jersey’s constitutional protections, the court can suppress the evidence. That can mean the difference between a conviction and a dismissal.

How Investigations Begin

CyberTips and the Private Search Doctrine

Many investigations start when a technology company flags an image or video through automated scanning and reports it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. That report, known as a CyberTip, may identify an account, IP address, or device. But a private company’s scan does not give police unlimited access. Officers may only view what the provider already examined. If they go further without a warrant, the search can exceed lawful bounds.

A careful defense review compares what the provider saw against what the police later examined. If the state overstepped, that evidence may be excluded.

Peer-to-Peer Networks and IP Address Tracing

Other cases arise from undercover file-sharing operations. Investigators use software to detect public IP addresses associated with illegal content. The accuracy of those identifications depends on the tools used, the completeness of the download, and the methods for linking an IP address to a specific home or user. In shared households or apartment complexes, that connection is far from certain. Defense counsel often challenges the reliability of the IP trace and whether the affidavit explained how investigators ruled out alternative users.

The Leap from an IP Address to a Home

After identifying an IP address, investigators typically subpoena subscriber records from the internet service provider. These records show where the account is registered; not who used it. Without surveillance or other corroboration, assuming that the subscriber was the offender is a leap the law does not permit. A detailed defense review can expose those weak assumptions.

The Warrant Requirement and New Jersey Privacy Law

Stronger Protections Under State Law

New Jersey’s Constitution provides broader privacy rights than the federal Fourth Amendment. Warrants must describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized with specificity. A warrant that authorizes the seizure of “all electronic devices” in a home, without limiting which devices or what data, risks being invalid. Courts require narrow, tailored warrants that match the facts of the case.

New Jersey’s exclusionary rule is also stricter than the federal standard. Evidence obtained from an unlawful warrant cannot be rescued by a “good faith” exception, making suppression motions particularly powerful in state court.

Particularity and Staleness

Digital searches require clear boundaries. Warrants should specify what types of data are sought, such as image files, messaging logs, or browser histories within a defined timeframe. If months have passed between an alleged download and the warrant application, the state must show why evidence likely still exists on the devices. Stale warrants can lead to suppression if the probable cause no longer supports a search.

Execution of the Warrant

Entry, Scope, and On-Scene Conduct

When executing a search, officers must follow the warrant’s terms. Nighttime or no-knock entries require specific judicial authorization. Once inside, officers must seize only the devices described and avoid expanding the search beyond what was approved. Courts scrutinize on-scene triage methods, such as previewing files or opening folders, to ensure agents did not exceed their authority.

Imaging, Chain of Custody, and Plain View

After seizure, devices are typically sent to forensic labs for imaging and analysis. Each step should be documented, with verified hash values showing that the copy matches the original. Any break in the chain of custody or missing forensic logs can cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence.

“Plain view” does not justify rummaging through unrelated folders or applications. In digital contexts, courts limit plain view to files whose incriminating nature is immediately obvious while the agent is lawfully viewing authorized data.

Digital and Cloud Data Searches

Cloud Accounts and Remote Storage

Police often seek warrants for cloud accounts linked to phones or computers. Because these repositories hold vast quantities of personal information, courts demand careful limitations on scope. The warrant should identify specific date ranges, accounts, or data types relevant to the alleged crime. Overly broad requests for “all content” risk suppression.

Messaging, Encryption, and Remote Access

Encrypted messaging platforms add complexity. If the state obtains backups or decrypted versions from a provider, it must still prove the warrant authorized that access. Forcing a person to unlock a phone or provide a password also raises constitutional issues. Courts examine whether consent was voluntary or whether officers used coercive tactics. Even a properly compelled biometric unlock does not automatically permit a full exploratory search.

Network Logs and Attribution

In multi-user homes, routers and wireless logs can help identify who accessed the internet at a given time. These artifacts sometimes show that a neighbor or guest device used the network. A defense expert can analyze this data to challenge the assumption that the subscriber or homeowner was the one responsible for the alleged downloads.

Consent, Coercion, and Exigent Circumstances

Some searches proceed without a warrant based on “consent” or claimed emergencies. But these exceptions are narrow. Consent must be freely given by someone with actual authority. A parent or spouse cannot necessarily authorize a search of another adult’s password-protected phone. If the person was misled, threatened, or told that refusal was futile, the consent is invalid.

Similarly, “exigent circumstances” apply only in genuine emergencies; such as an imminent threat to life or destruction of evidence. The mere risk that data could be deleted is not enough if officers could have secured the scene and obtained a warrant. Courts look closely at how long it actually would have taken to get judicial approval.

Forensic Methods and Defense Analysis

Hash Matching and File Identification

Digital forensics relies on “hash values” that uniquely identify files. Investigators compare those values against databases of known illegal material. While reliable in many cases, these systems are not flawless. Corrupted or partial files can produce false positives. A defense expert will confirm whether the state visually verified the files or relied solely on automated matches.

Metadata, User Activity, and Attribution

Prosecutors must link the files to a specific user, not just a device. Metadata showing creation times, user profiles, and login histories often determines who actually downloaded or viewed the material. In shared households, attribution becomes uncertain. Demonstrating that others had access to the device can introduce reasonable doubt and undermine probable cause for broader searches.

Integrity of Forensic Procedures

Every forensic process should be reproducible. Defense counsel has the right to review the forensic images, the tools used, and the examiner’s notes. If analysts failed to document their steps or altered data unintentionally, the reliability of the entire report can be questioned. Judges expect precision because digital evidence is easily mishandled or misinterpreted.

Suppression Remedies in New Jersey

How Evidence Gets Thrown Out

If a search or seizure violated constitutional protections, New Jersey courts can exclude the resulting evidence and any derivative findings. A warrant that is overbroad, unsupported by probable cause, or executed outside its scope can render the data inadmissible. Suppression may apply to specific devices, certain date ranges, or even entire categories of data.

The Motion and Hearing Process

A motion to suppress typically challenges the affidavit, warrant, and manner of execution. Defense counsel compares the warrant’s language with what officers actually did and identifies inconsistencies. Judges often grant evidentiary hearings where officers testify under oath about the investigation. Exposing gaps in their understanding of technology, chain of custody, or user attribution can shift the balance in the defense’s favor.

Even partial suppression, excluding some files or devices, can reshape plea negotiations or lead to dismissal when the remaining evidence is insufficient.

Sentencing Exposure and Enhancements

New Jersey Penalties and Aggravating Factors

Under New Jersey law, possession, viewing, or distribution of child sexual abuse material is a serious felony carrying potential state prison terms and mandatory registration. Aggravating factors include the number of files, the ages of victims, the use of peer-to-peer software, or any indication that material was shared with others. Judges also consider mitigating factors such as the defendant’s history, mental health treatment, and risk assessment outcomes.

Federal Enhancements

Some cases move to federal court, especially when interstate sharing or cloud storage is involved. Federal sentencing guidelines add enhancements for the number of images, the use of a computer, depictions of prepubescent minors, or violent content. These enhancements can dramatically increase sentencing ranges. Defense counsel focuses on limiting which enhancements apply and challenging how the government counted or categorized the material.

N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(a) and the Degrees of the Offense

New Jersey’s child pornography statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(a), governs possession, distribution, and viewing of child sexual abuse material. The same statute that criminalizes simple possession also outlines much more serious exposure when the state alleges that a person knowingly distributed files or made them accessible to others. Distribution does not always mean deliberately sending images. In many cases, prosecutors rely on peer-to-peer settings, shared folders, or automated syncing features to argue that files were “made available,” even when the user never took affirmative steps to share them. These technical questions often determine whether someone faces a second-degree felony or a third-degree charge.

The degree of the offense depends on the conduct alleged and the number of files. Possession or viewing of child sexual abuse material is ordinarily a third-degree crime, carrying a possible three to five years in state prison. When the state claims distribution, the exposure increases significantly. Distribution is typically charged as a second-degree offense, which carries a sentencing range of five to ten years and exposes the accused to mandatory parole ineligibility if aggravating factors apply. In cases involving twenty-five or more files, accusations that material was offered to others, or evidence of file-sharing platforms, prosecutors often push for the higher degree. Even a single file can trigger a second-degree charge if the state believes it was offered for download over a public network. These distinctions highlight why the defense must carefully examine how the files were stored, transferred, and detected.

Because 2C:24-4(b)(5)(a) also requires proof that the defendant acted “knowingly,” the context of the device use, the presence of malware, shared household access, or evidence of inadvertent downloads all play a critical role. A strong defense focuses on these nuances, challenging whether the state can actually prove the mental state needed for a conviction. The statute also triggers mandatory sex offender registration and long-term supervision if a conviction is entered, underscoring the importance of addressing both the digital evidence and the legal elements from the outset.

When Police Arrive

If investigators arrive with a warrant, remain calm and avoid arguing or obstructing. Ask to see and retain a copy of the warrant. Do not consent to additional searches beyond what the warrant covers, and do not discuss passwords or ownership. Anything said on scene can later be used in court. After the search, contact counsel immediately to evaluate next steps, including emergency motions to protect digital privacy and to begin analyzing the forensic evidence.

The Role of The Law Office of Tara Breslow

Attorney Tara Breslow understands how digital evidence is generated, transferred, and analyzed in modern investigations. The firm works with experienced forensic experts to test the reliability of government findings, identify overreach, and challenge improper warrants. Clients receive individualized representation focused on privacy, fairness, and due process.

From the moment a warrant is executed, every action matters. Ms. Breslow guides clients and families through each stage of the process evaluating the legality of the search, reviewing the devices seized, and assessing exposure under both state and federal law. She approaches these cases with a combination of technical precision and human perspective, knowing that the outcome will affect not only liberty but also reputation and family stability.

Take Action Before Evidence Defines the Case

The period immediately following a search is critical. Evidence can be challenged, but only if the defense acts quickly to preserve records, logs, and chain-of-custody details. If you were served with a search warrant, received a CyberTip notification, or suspect that investigators are examining your digital activity, do not wait to seek legal help.

Contact The Law Office of Tara Breslow for a confidential consultation. The firm will review the warrant, analyze the state’s methods, and explain the options available for challenging the evidence. Early intervention may prevent charges from being filed, or may be the key to suppressing evidence and protecting your future. We represent clients in Monmouth, Ocean, Mercer, Middlesex, Warren and throughout New Jersey and are prepared to act quickly on your behalf.