IP Address Evidence Alone in Federal Case

IP Address Evidence Alone in Federal Case – Can They Convict You

Federal courts have ruled that an IP address is not a person. Multiple judges have thrown out cases and denied subpoenas specifically because IP addresses don’t identify individuals. One federal judge compared an IP address to a telephone number – it identifies a location, not a person. Another judge cited a 20 to 50 percent error rate on geolocation technology. These rulings should mean that IP address evidence alone isn’t enough to convict anyone of anything.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth nobody explains. IP address evidence is weak at trial – but you don’t get to trial without getting raided first. An IP address is enough for a search warrant. A search warrant puts federal agents in your home at 6am. Those agents seize every electronic device you own. And what they find on those devices becomes the real evidence against you. The IP address was just the key to get in the door.

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you real information about how IP address evidence actually works in federal child pornography cases – the difference between what courts have ruled and what prosecutors actually do. Todd Spodek has defended clients whose cases began with nothing but an IP address and ended with federal charges. He understands the two-stage process that turns weak evidence into devastating prosecutions. This article explains what you’re really facing.

The Paradox – Enough For A Warrant, Not Enough For Identity

Heres the fundamental paradox of IP address evidence. Federal courts have said IP addresses cannot identify individuals. And federal courts have also said IP addresses can support search warrants. Both of these statements are true. And understanding how they work together is the key to understanding your situation.

The Third Circuit held in United States v. Vosburgh that “evidence that the user of a computer employing a particular IP address possessed or transmitted child pornography can support a search warrant for the physical premises linked to that IP address.” That means federal agents can get a warrant to raid your home based on an IP address alone.

But the same courts have also recognized – repeatedly – that an IP address dosent identify who actually used that computer or internet connection. Judge Gary Brown in the Eastern District of New York explained that “an IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.”

OK so what does this mean in practice? It means federal agents can kick in your door based on evidence that courts acknowledge dosent prove you did anything. The standard for a search warrant is probable cause – which is MUCH lower then the standard for conviction, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Agents need to show that its reasonably likely someone at your address committed a crime. They dont need to prove it was you. They dont need to prove it at all. They just need probability.

The search happens first. The proof comes later. And by the time the question of proof becomes relevant, agents have already been inside your home and seized everything electronic.

At Spodek Law Group, we see this pattern constantly. Clients come to us after there homes have been raided. They say “but the IP address dosent prove I did it.” And theyre right. But the seizure already happened. The investigation is already underway. And what agents find on those seized devices is the evidence that will actually be used against them.

What Courts Have Actually Ruled

Multiple federal judges have explicitly stated that IP addresses cannot identify individuals. These rulings should give you hope – if you understand there limitations.

In 2011, Judge Harold Baker in the Central District of Illinois denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena ISPs for alleged pirates. His reasoning was direct: “IP address does not equal a person.” He even cited a child pornography case were federal authorities raided the wrong people becuase the real offenders were piggybacking on there WiFi connections. The judge recognized that defendants named in lawsuits based on IP addresses may have nothing to do with the alleged offense.

In 2012, Judge Gary Brown issued his famous ruling comparing IP addresses to telephone numbers. He called the assumption that the person paying the bills is responsible for all activity “tenuous.” He recognized what should be obvious – multiple people can use the same internet connection.

In 2014, Judge Dean Pregerson went even further. He found that geolocation systems used to identify physical addresses from IP addresses have a 20 to 50 percent error rate. That means one in five addresses identified through IP geolocation may not even be in the correct federal court jurisdiction. He threw out 15 lawsuits against defendants identified only by IP addresses.

In 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “being the registered subscriber of an infringing IP address does not create a reasonable inference that the subscriber is also the infringer.”

These rulings establish important legal principles. But heres the irony. Most of these rulings came in copyright cases – not child pornography cases. Copyright trolls lost there mass lawsuits becuase courts recognized IP addresses dont identify people. But child pornography prosecutions continue to begin with IP addresses every day.

The rulings help. But they help most AFTER youve already been raided. They help when your challenging the evidence at trial. They help when your appealing a conviction. They dont stop the search warrant from being issued in the first place.

Think about what this means practically. A judge issues a ruling saying IP addresses dont identify people. But that ruling dosent prevent the next search warrant from being issued based on an IP address. That ruling dosent prevent the next raid. It only helps defendants who can afford to fight there cases all the way through trial and appeal. And even then, if agents found incriminating evidence on the seized devices, the IP address ruling becomes irrelevant.

The legal principle is real. But its application is limited. And most defendants never get to use it becuase what happens after the raid determines the outcome.

The Search Warrant Trap

Heres the inversion that matters. The question isnt “is an IP address enough to convict me?” The question is “what happens between the search warrant and the trial?”

The IP address gets federal agents into your home. The search warrant based on that IP address authorizes them to seize every electronic device you own. Those devices go to federal forensic labs. Analysts examine every file, every search history, every deleted photo, every piece of data that can be recovered. And what they find on those devices becomes the evidence at trial.

By the time you get to court, the prosecution isnt relying on the IP address anymore. Theyre relying on what they found on your computer. The IP address was the fishing expedition. The seized devices are the catch.

This is were the two different legal standards come into play. Probable cause for a search warrant is a low standard. It means “reasonably likely.” Beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction is the highest standard in law. It means “no reasonable person could conclude otherwise.” Those are very different things.

But the search happens at the lower standard. And once agents have your devices, they can find evidence to meet the higher standard. The weak IP evidence opens the door to strong forensic evidence. Thats how the system actually works.

Todd Spodek explains this to clients all the time. They want to know if the IP address evidence is enough to convict them. The answer is probly no. But thats the wrong question. The right question is whether agents will find incriminating evidence on the devices they already seized. If the answer is yes, the original IP address becomes irrelevant. If the answer is no, you should still prepare for a long investigation becuase agents will keep looking.

The Geolocation Problem

Theres another issue with IP address evidence that dosent get enough attention. The technology used to convert IP addresses into physical addresses is shockingly imprecise.

Judge Pregerson found that geolocation systems have error rates of 20 to 50 percent. That means if you receive a search warrant based on IP geolocation, theres a one in five chance – possibly higher – that agents raided the wrong address entirely.

Heres how this happens. Your internet service provider assigns IP addresses to customers. But IP addresses dont map perfectly to physical locations. The geolocation databases that law enforcement uses are approximations. They get the general area right most of the time. But the specific building? The specific apartment? Thats were errors creep in.

In dense urban areas, one IP address might map to an entire apartment building. In rural areas, an IP address might point to a location miles from the actual subscriber. And in cases involving VPNs, Tor networks, or public WiFi, the IP address might have nothing to do with the person who actually committed the offense.

At Spodek Law Group, weve handled cases were clients were raided based on IP addresses that pointed to the wrong location. Were the “WiFi piggybacking” defense was legitimate becuase neighbors were using unsecured networks. Were the geolocation technology simply got it wrong.

These defenses matter. But they matter most when you have experienced counsel who understands both the technology and the law. Federal agents believe the IP address points to you. Proving otherwise requires technical expertise and legal strategy working together.

What Happens After The Raid

Lets walk through the consequence cascade that actually happens in these cases.

Federal agents identify an IP address sharing or downloading child exploitation material. They trace that IP address to an internet service provider. They subpoena subscriber information. They get a physical address. They apply for a search warrant. A judge signs it based on probable cause.

Then agents execute the warrant. They show up at 6am. They seize every electronic device in the home. Computers, phones, tablets, game consoles, external drives, anything with storage. They spend hours going through your house. They interview everyone present. They document everything.

Now the waiting begins. Federal forensic labs have massive backlogs. It can take six months to a year just to begin examination of seized devices. During this time, your devices are gone. Your life is on hold. You dont know what theyre finding. You dont know if charges are coming.

Eventualy, forensic analysis is complete. If analysts find incriminating evidence on your devices, prosecution begins. If they dont find anything, the investigation may close – but your devices have been in federal custody for months, your home was searched, and your name is in a federal child pornography investigation file.

The IP address is already irrelevant by this point. Prosecutors arent charging you based on the IP address. Theyre charging you based on what analysts found on your seized devices. The IP address was the key that opened the door. The door has been open for months. What matters now is what they found inside.

This is the uncomfortable truth. “But the IP address dosent prove it was me” is a valid legal argument. But its an argument about the original investigation, not about the evidence prosecutors will use at trial. If your devices contained incriminating material, the IP address debate is academic.

The Federal Conviction Reality

Lets talk about what happens if charges are filed. The federal conviction rate is 93 percent. When federal prosecutors bring charges, they almost always win. This isnt becuase the system is rigged – its becuase prosecutors only bring cases they are confident they can prove.

Mandatory minimum sentences for federal child pornography offenses start at 5 years. Distribution charges carry up to 20 years. If the content involves prepubescent children or violence, sentencing enhancements add years. Federal sentences must be served at 85 percent minimum – theres no parole.

Heres what this means for your case. If forensic analysis of your seized devices reveals child pornography, you are almost certainly going to federal prison. The IP address that started the investigation becomes a footnote. The evidence on your devices becomes everything.

The Playpen investigation demonstrates the scale of this. The FBI obtained over 9,000 IP addresses from a dark web child exploitation site. That investigation resulted in more then 200 criminal charges. 9,000 IP addresses led to 200+ prosecutions. Those prosecutions werent based on IP addresses alone – they were based on what agents found when they executed thousands of search warrants.

At Spodek Law Group, we tell clients the truth about there situations. If your devices contained illegal content, the defense strategy changes. The goal becomes damage control – minimizing sentences, exploring cooperation options, protecting the things that can still be protected. Pretending the IP address defense will save you when your devices contained evidence is not a winning strategy.

Defenses That Actually Work

If your genuinly innocent – if someone else used your IP address, if your WiFi was hacked, if geolocation pointed to the wrong address – there are defenses that work. But they require evidence, expertise, and aggressive advocacy.

WiFi piggybacking defense: If your wireless network was unsecured or compromised, someone else may have used your internet connection. This is a legitimate defense. But proving it requires forensic analysis of your router logs, network configuration, and connected devices.

Geolocation error defense: If the IP geolocation pointed to the wrong address, thats a defense. But proving it requires technical expertise and challenging the governments methodology.

Alternative suspect defense: If someone else in your household or with access to your network committed the offense, thats a defense. But proving it often means pointing the finger at someone else – a roommate, a family member, a guest. This is emotionally devastating but sometimes necessary.

Timestamp alibi defense: If the downloads occurred when you were provably elsewhere, thats a defense. Work records, travel records, cell phone location data, surveillance footage – all of this can establish you werent present.

Todd Spodek works with digital forensics experts who understand these defenses at a technical level. Challenging IP address evidence isnt just about legal arguments – its about understanding how the technology actually works and were the governments case has weaknesses.

What You Must Do Right Now

If federal agents have executed a search warrant at your home based on IP address evidence, heres what you need to understand.

First: the IP address argument is important but not sufficient. Yes, courts have ruled that IP addresses dont identify individuals. But agents already have your devices. The investigation has moved beyond the IP address. You need a defense strategy that addresses what comes next, not just what already happened.

Second: hire a federal criminal defense attorney immediatly. Not a general practitioner. Not someone who primarily handles state cases. You need an attorney who understands federal child exploitation investigations, digital forensics, and the specific defenses available in IP-based cases. At Spodek Law Group, we’ve handled these cases from the initial raid through trial and appeal.

Third: do not try to explain to agents. Do not try to convince them the IP address wasnt you. Do not speculate about who might have used your connection. Every word becomes evidence. Let your attorney handle communications.

Fourth: do not attempt to destroy evidence. Your devices are already seized. But do not delete files from other devices. Do not contact potential witnesses. Do not do anything that could be characterized as obstruction. That becomes an additional federal charge.

Fifth: preserve any evidence that could help your defense. Router logs if you still have access. Network configuration records. Documentation of who had access to your home and network. This evidence may prove crucial later.

The IP address brought federal agents to your door. What happens next depends on what they find – and how effectively your defense challenges both the original investigation and the forensic evidence. Courts have said IP addresses dont identify people. Now your attorney needs to make that legal principle work in your specific case.

Call us at 212-300-5196. The consultation is free and completly confidential. Federal agents have your devices. Your name is in there investigation file. The window to affect the outcome of your case is narrowing. Get experienced federal defense counsel who understands how to challenge IP-based investigations – and what comes after them.

Dont assume the legal rulings about IP addresses will automatically protect you. They help. But they help most when deployed by experienced counsel as part of a comprehensive defense strategy. The courts have spoken. Now your attorney needs to make those rulings work for your specific situation.