How law enforcement gets from a file sharing program to your front door
Law enforcement generally proceeds by obtaining a search warrant for the IP address seeking to seize all computers and peripherals at the location. The execution of these warrants are deliberately timed to find people at the location who can be confronted and interviewed. In these interviews law enforcement officers will seek to (1) establish who uses particular computers; (2) what that person uses the computer for; and (3) is that person aware that child pornography is on the computer. This is critical information for the successful prosecution of these cases.
No one confronted with charges of possessing sexual images of children on his computer should speak to the police
Anyone confronted by officers with a search warrant such as this should fully cooperate in letting the officers search. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT TALK TO THESE OFFICERS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TALK. DON'T DO IT. TALKING IS THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO.
A good lawyer will explore all possible legal defenses
Many, or even most, attorneys who represent client in the Child Pornography cases assume from the outset of the case that they will be urging the client to accept whatever plea offer the state or federal prosecution offers. They assume there are no defenses in these cases and base their fees on the assumption they will be pleading the case and not examining the evidence with an independent computer forensic team and challenging the prosecutor's evidence with motions. The Law Office of Richard L. Lougee, before even considering a resolution of the case with a plea agreement, will demand to have their experts view the seized electronic evidence to determine whether the prosecutor can prove the accused purposefully accessed the proscribed images. The firm also has been filing motions challenging the legality of the grand jury search warrants being improperly used by the local police departments to obtain residence addresses from Internet service providers. These motions have not yet been decided by the Courts but provide a credible challenge to the state's case by seeking suppression of all of the evidence seized (including statements by the accused) during the execution of the search warrant.