Homer Clark Steele v. State (2011)

Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd).

Here, the affiant stated that “[p]eople who have a sexual interest in children or minors rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials.” See Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (concluding that magistrate could have reasonably concluded defendant continued to be in possession of child pornography because affidavit proved “expert testimony that persons sexually attracted to children tend to collect sexually exp…

Here, the affiant stated that “[p]eople who have a sexual interest in children or minors rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials.” See Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (concluding that magistrate could have reasonably concluded defendant continued to be in possession of child pornography because affidavit proved “expert testimony that persons sexually attracted to children tend to collect sexually exp…

Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d).

Here, the affiant stated that “[p]eople who have a sexual interest in children or minors rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials.” See Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (concluding that magistrate could have reasonably concluded defendant continued to be in possession of child pornography because affidavit proved “expert testimony that persons sexually attracted to children tend to collect sexually expl…

Here, the affiant stated that “[p]eople who have a sexual interest in children or minors rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials.” See Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (concluding that magistrate could have reasonably concluded defendant continued to be in possession of child pornography because affidavit proved “expert testimony that persons sexually attracted to children tend to collect sexually exp…

Here, the affiant stated that “[p]eople who have a sexual interest in children or minors rarely, if ever, dispose of their sexually explicit materials.” See Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (concluding that magistrate could have reasonably concluded defendant continued to be in possession of child pornography because affidavit proved “expert testimony that persons sexually attracted to children tend to collect sexually exp…

Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd).

“The lack of a specific date in a search-warrant affidavit is not necessarily fatal to the validity of a search warrant.” Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 750 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d).

See Bordelon, 673 S.W.3d at 787–92 (where Microsoft sent cyber tip to NCMEC in January, and police sought warrant in June, probable cause did not grow stale despite affidavit not connecting owner of IP address to date of incriminating uploads). 35 Moreover, Texas courts have explained that child pornography cases often involve continuous criminal endeavors where collectors tend to retain the contraband indefinitely; thus, courts “have repeatedly rejected claims that the pass…

See Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref’d) (concluding that magistrate could have reasonably concluded defendant continued to be in possession of child pornography because affidavit provided “expert testimony that persons sexually attracted to children tend to collect sexually explicit photographs of children, treating the photographs as prized possessions, of which they rarely dispose”); see also Morris v. State, 62 S.W.3d 817 …

See eg., Checo v. State, 402 S.W.3d 440, 449-450 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref’d)(upholding probable cause determination where officer’s statement in warrant affidavit for search of computer that those who engage children in sexually explicit manner often collect child porn on their computers was based solely on his experience, training, and discussions with other experienced investigators); see also, Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751-52 (Tex.App.—Houston …

See, e.g., Steele v. State, 355 S.W.3d 746, 751-52 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. ref'd) (relying on similar expert statements in officer’s affidavit in holding probable cause existed for issuance of warrant). 6 *450 Applying a high degree of deference to the magistrate’s determination, we find that Colburn’s affidavits presented a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.