Court Weighs Suppression of Evidence in 'Red Rose' Case

PITTSBURGH — U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti this week denied one defense motion to suppress statements made by the defendant, but continued a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence collected by law enforcement in the obscenity case pending against Karen Fletcher, AKA “Red Rose.”

In November, Fletcher’s attorneys filed a motion to suppress statements Fletcher made to agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during the FBI’s initial visit to Fletcher’s home in February, 2005, as well as a motion to suppress evidence collected by law enforcement agents during a subsequent search of her home conducted in August of that year.

This week, Conti denied the defense’s motion to suppress Fletcher’s statements, but continued the hearing on the evidence suppression motion, and gave the government time to consider whether it will introduce additional evidence in support of the search warrant executed in 2005.

According to Lawrence Walters, one of Fletcher’s attorneys, the search warrant obtained by the investigating agents was very broad, and there is a degree of mystery surrounding what all was contained in an exhibit supplied with the application for the warrant.

In assembling evidence in the case, one of the FBI agents downloaded stories from Fletcher’s website, which he then took to a magistrate judge as material in support of an application for a search warrant. The stories and other evidence were assembled in an exhibit marked “Exhibit A.” The problem confronting the court now, according to Walters, is that it is no longer clear precisely what information was contained in “Exhibit A.”

“The agent said that he believes all the stories [downloaded from Fletcher’s site] were contained in the exhibit, but he kept no list,” Walters said. “Even today, we don’t know what all was contained in the ‘Exhibit A’ file.”

Where that fact becomes significant, Walters said, is that under 1st Amendment law, warrants pertaining to alleged obscene materials are only valid if they identify the obscene materials specifically.

“The materials have to be identified by a title, description or some other specific identifier,” Walters said. “In a child porn case, because child porn is not protected by the 1st Amendment, it’s essentially fine to say ‘go seize anything that looks like child porn.’ But you can’t just say ‘seize all obscene materials,’ or ‘seize all pornographic materials,’ because that makes it too general a warrant. By failing to constrain the agents’ search to specific materials, they created an invalid warrant, in our view.”

Walters said that while denial of motions to suppress is “usually a forgone conclusion,” the facts of the situation at hand make the outcome of the court’s ruling more difficult to predict.

“This is an interesting circumstance, and it will be very interesting to see what the court decides,” Walters said. “We certainly feel that the warrant was overbroad, and went beyond what would normally be allowed [in an obscenity case].”

The court has set a deadline of February 12 for the government to decide whether to present additional evidence in support of its contention that the warrant did not violated the 1st and 4th Amendments, and to advise the court whether it wishes to continue the hearing on the defense motion to suppress, or proceed with the evidence already submitted.

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

UPDATED: Supreme Court Rules Against Adult Industry in Pivotal Texas AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, striking a blow against the online adult industry by ruling in support of Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

North Carolina Passes Extreme Bill Targeting Adult Sites

The North Carolina state legislature this week ratified a bill that would impose new regulations that industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

Supreme Court Ruling Due Friday in FSC v. Paxton AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Friday in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the adult industry trade association's challenge to Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

Ofcom: More Porn Providers Commit to Age Assurance Measures

A number of adult content providers operating in the U.K. have confirmed that they plan to introduce age checks in compliance with the Online Safety Act by the July 25 deadline, according to U.K. media regulator Ofcom.

Aylo Says It Will Comply With UK Age Assurance Requirements

Tech and media company Aylo, which owns various adult properties including Pornhub, YouPorn and Redtube, plans to introduce age assurance methods in the United Kingdom that satisfy government rules under the Online Safety Act, the company has announced.

Kyrgyzstan Parliament Approves Measure Outlawing Internet Porn

The Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan on Wednesday passed legislation outlawing online adult content in the country.

Trial Set for Lawsuit by U Wisconsin Professor Fired Over Adult Content

A trial date of June 22, 2026, has been set for the civil lawsuit filed by veteran communications professor Joe Gow against the University of Wisconsin board of regents, which fired him for creating and appearing in adult content.

New UK Task Force Meets to Target Adult Content

The architect of an influential report that recommended banning adult content deemed “degrading, violent and misogynistic” has convened an “Independent Pornography Review task force” aimed at translating that report’s findings into action in the U.K.

11:11 Creations Launches Affiliate Program

11:11 Creations principal Alicia Silver has launched 11:11 Cash for creators and affiliates.

Pineapple Support, Pornhub to Host 'Self Love' Support Group

Pineapple Support and Pornhub are hosting a free online support group for performers to develop self-love.

Show More