Chad Allen Mutschelknaus lost his appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. He challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence after he was arrested for child pornography. He raised two issues on appeal. First, he claimed the affidavit supporting a search warrant for his girlfriend’s house was insufficient to show probable cause. Second, he challenged an order by the trial court giving the police 60 days to examine a computer seized during the search.

Police traced the sending of pornographic pictures to “Aronechee,” in Alaska. They obtained permission from “Aronechee” to use his online identity. They tracked a receiver’s Internet Protocol address to Mutschelknaus’ girlfriend. Then they emailed Mutschelknaus claiming to be “Aronechee.” As “Aronechee,” they told Mutschelknaus that “Aronechee” had lost all of his photographs and they asked Mutschelknaus to return copies to “Aronechee”. Mutschelknaus sent “Aronechee” the 236 pictures he had received in his last batch.

Mutschelknaus was arrested. He was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. He entered a conditional plea to possession of child pornography, allowing him to challenge the search. He was sentenced to 63 months.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Arel filed an affidavit for a search warrant of Mutschelknaus’ girlfriend’s house in which he stated his experience with child pornography and described some of the pictures but he did not attached the pornography to the affidavit. He also asked that law enforcement be given 60 days to study the hard drive of the computer.

The appellate court found that the description of the pornography, in light of Arel’s expertise and training in the field, was sufficient for a finding of probable cause. Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the search warrant be served within ten days of the judge signing it. Mutschelknaus argued that giving law enforcement 60 days to examine the hard drive violated Rule 41. The U. S. Attorney argued that Rule 41 did not cover acts commited after the serving of the warrant. The appellate court found, that in any case, a violation of Rule 41 only results in suppression if the defendant show prejudice and none was shown.