Articles Tagged with child pornography Michigan

Published on: | by

Deleted CSAM evidence in Michigan is rarely gone for good. Forensic analysts recover files through hash values stored in a device’s cache, even when images have been deleted by the user. A hash match against the NCMEC database can support charges without recovering the complete image file.

Deleted CSAM files are rarely eliminated from a device’s storage simply by hitting delete. One place deleted images frequently remain is in the device’s cache or temporary memory, where forensic analysts can identify and recover them even when the user believes the material is gone.

When a forensic analyst identifies a CSAM file on a device, what they have established is that a file matching a known hash value was present. A hash value is a unique numerical fingerprint assigned to a specific digital file. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children maintains a database of hash values for known CSAM images, and a match against that database can support charges even when the original image has been deleted, was never fully opened, or exists only as a fragment in the device’s cache memory.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A police search for CSAM in Michigan requires either a warrant or your consent in almost every circumstance. A warrant requires probable cause, enough evidence to persuade a neutral judge that the search is justified. That same threshold must be met before a judge will authorize criminal charges. You have the right to refuse a consent search, and exercising that right is almost always in your best interest.

Because a police search for CSAM in Michigan can proceed in three ways: with a warrant, with your consent, or in limited circumstances without either, when investigators ask for consent rather than presenting a warrant, it is because they do not yet have enough evidence to meet that standard. Consenting hands them exactly what they need. Refusing does not create probable cause where none exists. It simply declines to supply the evidence the investigation currently lacks.

Law enforcement officers are trained to obtain consent and are legally permitted to use deception to get it. Police may lawfully make false statements about the strength of their evidence, what others have told them, what they have already found, and what consequences will follow from cooperation or refusal. None of those representations are legally binding and none are required to be true.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

NCMEC reports CSAM to Michigan law enforcement after technology platforms detect it and generate an automated tip. Federal law requires platforms to submit those reports to the NCMEC CyberTipline, which reviews and forwards them to the appropriate investigative agency. Detection can happen without any human review of your files.

What most people do not understand about a case where NCMEC reports CSAM to Michigan law enforcement is that by the time an agent makes contact, the investigation has typically been underway for weeks or months. The platform detected the material, generated an automated report, NCMEC reviewed and forwarded it, and federal or state investigators identified the account holder, confirmed the address, and built a probable cause foundation for a warrant, all before any contact with the suspect. The person receiving that knock believes they are at the beginning of a process. In reality they are near its end.

That asymmetry produces four predictable and serious mistakes. The first is believing that cooperating with investigators will result in more lenient treatment. It rarely does, and statements made during voluntary cooperation frequently become the most damaging evidence in the case. The second is believing that deleting files or destroying the device eliminates the evidence. It does not. Hash values and metadata can persist in ways that are not visible to the user, and destruction of a device after a person knows or reasonably suspects an investigation is underway carries its own serious legal consequences. The third is believing that because no contact has occurred for weeks or months, law enforcement lost interest or moved on. Investigations of this kind do not expire. The fourth is believing that a prior conversation with investigators went well and the matter is resolved. It almost certainly is not.

Continue Reading ›