Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Whether the search warrants for defendant’s property were supported by “probable cause”; Whether noncriminal acts could support probable cause; Consideration of defendant’s past convictions; Motion for a judgment of acquittal; Sufficiency of the evidence; Knowingly possessing child pornography; 18 USC § 2252A(a)(5)(B)

The court held that while the individual acts supporting the search warrants for defendant-Lineback’s home and seized electronic devices may have been noncriminal, under the “totality of the circumstances” they were sufficient to support “probable cause” for the warrants to search for evidence of child pornography. It also held that his motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied because there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction. He was convicted of knowingly possessing child pornography. He challenged the two search warrants in a motion to suppress, alleging lack of probable cause as to the home search warrant and fruit of the poisonous tree as to the electronics search warrant. The district court denied his motion to suppress and his later motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, the court rejected the lack of probable cause argument where there was evidence that Lineback had approached an underage youth who went to the police and informed them that “he was being solicited.” The texts he received from Lineback included photos of the boy’s face, “edited to be wearing lipstick, superimposed onto female bodies wearing pantyhose.” Lineback told him that he looked “cute” and invited him over to his house. Also, “in the background of these overt acts are Lineback’s past convictions that led to his registration as a sex offender, both of which involved sexual crimes against minors. This is enough for probable cause.” He argued that none of the photos were pornographic and the invitation to come to his house did not constitute solicitation. “But whether each isolated act alone supports probable cause is irrelevant: probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances, . . . and even noncriminal acts can support a probable cause finding when they raise the suspicion of criminal activity[.]” His past convictions were also properly considered, viewed “in light of the other evidence included in the affidavit.” The court noted that “when a convicted pedophile tells a juvenile he looks cute and invites that victim to his house, the totality of the circumstances weighs differently than if he had no such conviction.” It also upheld the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal given “the weight of the circumstantial evidence.” This included the “‘age of consent’ form that he wrote to obtain a minor’s ‘consent’ before engaging in sex with him[,]” and the hard drive found in his home that contained a folder titled “Nude Boys,” in which “the FBI discovered the two images of child pornography that led to Lineback’s prosecution.” Affirmed.