Investigating the Internet distribution of child pornography, the FBI looked into something called “BitTorrent,” described as a file sharing network that is publicly available and which uses peer-to-peer file-sharing, allowing a computer to share and download files from other computers.  This led to an Internet protocol (“IP”) address at an account registered to defendant Stefan Ramirez’s at his home address in Fresno.  In checking defendant’s IP address, the FBI conducted 23 separate download sessions in November and December 2016, involving over 4,000 still images and 20 videos of suspected child pornography.  Conducting a physical surveillance on defendant’s home in Fresno, it was noted that a white Chrysler sedan, registered to defendant, was often parked in the driveway.  Knowing from experience that computers and other electronic storage devices were commonly stored in one’s vehicle, and that someone at that residence—possibly defendant—was “involved in (the) possession, receipt, and/or distribution of child pornography,” Special Agent Joshua Ratzlaff obtained a search warrant for the residence along with any “[v]ehicles located at or near the premises that fall under the dominion and control of (defendant) or any other occupant of the premises.”  Defendant himself was not specifically named as a person to be searched because although the identified Internet account was in defendant’s name, several people were known to live there and it was not yet known for sure who at the residence might be receiving the child pornography.  The plan was to speak with defendant when the search warrant was executed in order to verify that he was in fact the person trafficking in child pornography.  However, on the day and at the time the warrant was executed (sometime during the spring of 2017), defendant had already left for work.  In fact no one was home and the Chrysler was gone when the agents arrived.  So instead of beginning the search as authorized by the warrant, Agent Ratzlaff decided to concoct a ruse to lure defendant home by calling him at his work, claiming to be a Fresno P.D. police officer investigating a burglary at the residence and telling him he needed to return home to confirm what was taken.  However, on a day when nothing seemed to be going according to plan, defendant did not answer his phone when called.  So Agent Ratzlaff called another person believed to also live there, only to find out that that person had moved out some three weeks earlier.  At Agent Ratzlaff’s request, that person called defendant, leaving him a message.  That person then called defendant’s mother, who owned the house.  Defendant’s mother came to the residence and confronted the FBI agents, unlocking the door and letting them inside. At the agents’ request, she then called defendant and—continuing the ruse that the police were there and that the house had been burglarized—asked him to come home.  Defendant promptly responded, returning the missed call from the FBI while on the way.  Agent Ratzlaff reiterated the story that he was a police officer, that there had been a burglary at his home, but they should wait until he arrived home to discuss the matter further.  Buying the ruse hook, line and sinker, defendant arrived home in his Chrysler to find armed agents wearing “Police” jackets and full body armor with a staged Fresno police car parked in front of the house.  It wasn’t until defendant parked his car and approached the agents that Agent Ratzlaff finally revealed his true identity and the real purpose of their investigation, explaining that he had used the ruse to induce him to come home and to speak to him about the FBI’s child pornography investigation.  Defendant was then patted down for weapons and his phone, wallet, and keys were seized.  He was taken into a bedroom where, after being told he was not under arrest but never told he could leave, he was subjected to a 45-minute interview during which he cop’d to knowingly possessing child pornography on his computer.  His possessions were not returned until the interview was over.  While being interviewed, other agents searched defendant’s Chrysler and recovered two laptops and two hard drives, presumably containing child pornography.  Charged in federal court with child pornography-related offenses, defendant’s motion to suppress was denied.  Pleading guilty to one count of the distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and sentenced to 12½ years in prison and five years of supervised release, defendant appealed.