UNITED STATES v. BURGESS
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8053.
-- August 11, 2009
As trial evidence demonstrated some of the file names in Burgess' hard drive were particularly descriptive and a review of the names would have legitimately aroused the suspicions of an agent trained in child pornography and inevitably led to the second search warrant.   See United States v. White, 326 F.3d 1135, 1138 (10th Cir.2003)(“the exclusionary rule is inapplicable if the evidence inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.”).   For example, one folder named “Nastiest11yoSeries” had a subfolder titled “Sausage” containing pornographic images of a young girl.  (R. Vol. II at 574.)   Another folder titled “AGE” contained subfolders titled “03,”“04,”“05,”“06,”“07,”“08,” “09,”“10” and “11.”  (Id. at 569-70.)   Each subfolder folder contained images of children the same age as described in the title engaged in sexually exploitive conduct.   One file was entitled “Lolita,” a term which Agent Hughes testified is often seen in the investigation of child pornography.   (Id. at 573-74.)