141504P.pdf   11/20/2014  United States  v.  Guy Wheelock
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1504
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Chief Judge Riley, Author, with Wollman and Bye, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - suppression and sentence. Use of administrative subpoena 
   ordering Comcast to provide Internet Protocol address did not violate the 
   Fourth Amendment. The third-party disclosure principle does not apply 
   differently in the digital context. The Minnesota internet privacy statute 
   does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy. Because Wheelock had 
   no reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information, a 
   warrant was not necessary. Neither federal nor state statute warrants 
   suppression. Imposition of fifteen-year mandatory minimum for repeat 
   offenders does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment 
   by setting receipt of child pornography at a higher minimum that 
   possession of child pornography. Receipt furthers the market whereas 
   possession may not and may involve a mens rea for knowing receipt. The 
   distinction in the minimums is not irrational.