A partially completed download bar, relevant to a partial torrent download probable cause warrant.

A single Torrential Downpour download often becomes the center of a warrant application. Sometimes it is not even a full download. It may be a partial download.

That fact does not automatically defeat probable cause. Still, it changes what you should ask. It also changes what a judge should be told.

This post is a practical guide for reviewing a partial torrent download probable cause warrant. It focuses on three themes: staleness, nexus, and translation accuracy. It also adds a short good-faith section.

Throughout, I am not arguing that BitTorrent warrants are “always bad.” I am describing what is testable. I am also flagging common affidavit overstatements.

The baseline: what “probable cause” means in this niche

Probable cause is a probability standard. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also is not “more likely than not” in a strict math sense.

In practice, courts ask whether the affidavit provides a fair probability. The question is whether evidence of a crime will be found at the place to be searched. That framework comes from long-settled Fourth Amendment doctrine [1].

In CSAM cases, affidavits often add a “collector” narrative. They describe how people who seek CSAM tend to keep it. They also describe how digital files persist in storage. Courts often accept that background.

So, when the government shows that a known CSAM file came from a target IP address, judges often sign. A single event can be enough. That is true even when the defense has strong arguments for trial.

Why a partial download still matters

A partial download can still prove a transfer. It can still prove that a peer had at least some pieces. It can also prove that a peer was participating in the swarm.

But a partial download also creates limits. Those limits are both legal and technical.

Legally, the affidavit must be careful about what it claims. Technically, the logs must support what the affidavit says.

This is the difference between:

  • “I downloaded the entire file from that IP address,” and
  • “I downloaded part of the file and confirmed it matched known CSAM.”

Those statements are not equivalent. They can both support probable cause. Still, they are not the same evidence.

Start with translation accuracy: what did the tool actually do?

Before you debate staleness, confirm the core facts. You need to know what Torrential Downpour did in the specific run.

Affidavits often compress a long technical record into a few paragraphs. That compression is where mistakes happen. It is also where advocacy creeps in.

Here are concrete items to verify.

1) What hash type is the affidavit talking about?

Many affidavits use “hash” loosely. In BitTorrent, you will see more than one kind of hash.

You may see:

  • A torrent infohash (which identifies a torrent’s metadata), and
  • A file hash (which identifies file content).

Your discovery review should confirm which one appears in the logs. You should also confirm which one appears in the known-file database claim. This matters for precision. It also matters for cross-exam. For a lawyer-friendly breakdown of torrent infohash vs file hash (and how affidavits sometimes blur the two), see: Torrential Downpour hash value probable cause.

2) Was the result “single source” or “single peer” in a looser sense?

Torrential Downpour is commonly described as “single source.” That is the claim that it pulled the file from one IP address. Many courts repeat that description [2]. For the practical “single-source vs single-peer vs single-connection” distinctions and what to demand in discovery, see: Torrential Downpour single-source download.

Still, you should verify how “single” is used in your case. Some reports mean “one peer at a time.” Others mean “one IP for the whole download.” Those are different.

If the download is partial, the distinction matters even more. You want to know whether the tool ever contacted another peer. You also want to know whether retries occurred.

3) What exactly did the investigator confirm?

Affidavits may say “confirmed the file was CSAM.” Sometimes that means a full file hash match after completion. Sometimes it means a partial-hash match. Sometimes it means a known piece match.

Some agencies also do a visual confirmation step. Others rely on hash matching. Courts have addressed “hash match” reliability in multiple contexts [3].

If your case involves a partial download, ask:

  • What percentage did they get?
  • What verification method did they use?
  • What did the logs show at the moment of verification?

This is not nitpicking. This is defining the evidence.

“One download” probable cause: what courts tend to do

Many defense lawyers hope that “only one download” defeats probable cause. In most jurisdictions, that is a tough sell.

The common judicial view is simple. If law enforcement downloaded contraband from a specific IP address, that supports a search. It supports a search of the residence tied to the subscriber. It also supports a search of computers and storage devices inside.

Courts often treat P2P cases as public exposure cases. They emphasize voluntary sharing. They also emphasize that law enforcement obtained what any peer could obtain [4].

That is why the fight often moves. It moves from “no probable cause” to “what exactly did you prove.” It also moves to “how stale is the inference.”

This is where BitTorrent single download probable cause disputes show up. They tend to be fact-specific. They often hinge on how the affidavit describes persistence.

Staleness: the time gap is not the only question

Staleness is often misunderstood as a calendar math exercise. It is not. It is about whether probable cause has “grown stale.” That depends on what is being searched for. It also depends on how the evidence behaves over time.

Courts commonly say staleness is evaluated in context. They look at the nature of the crime. They look at the type of evidence. They look at the time period [5].

In CSAM warrants, affidavits usually add two staleness arguments:

  • Digital files persist, and
  • People who collect CSAM tend to keep it.

Many judges accept those arguments. Still, that does not mean staleness is irrelevant. It means your staleness argument must be anchored.

A practical staleness checklist for counsel

When you see a partial torrent download probable cause warrant, pull the dates. Do it in a table. Then ask these questions.

What is the event date?

List the date and time of the download attempt. List the time zone. Check whether the affidavit states time sync practices.

If the tool uses local system time, the system clock matters. If the tool uses a server time, that matters too. If you cannot tell, ask.

What is the warrant date?

List the date and time the judge signed. If there was a delay, identify why.

Delays happen for many reasons. They are not always fatal. Still, you should identify them.

What is the execution date?

If there was a long gap between signing and execution, note it. Some rules are jurisdiction-specific. Still, the timeline helps you spot issues.

What does the affidavit claim is likely to still be present?

Some affidavits speak broadly. They say “evidence will be found.” Others are more specific.

If the download was partial, press for specificity. What is the evidence you expect to find? Is it a file? Is it a BitTorrent client configuration? Is it residue in unallocated space?

That question ties directly to staleness in CSAM warrants.

When partial downloads can strengthen a staleness critique

A partial download can support probable cause. But it can also narrow the inference.

If the government only obtained a small piece set, they may not know:

  • Whether the peer completed the file,
  • Whether the peer saved the file, or
  • Whether the peer immediately deleted it.

Those are trial questions. Still, they can also shape staleness.

If the affidavit presents “partial transfer” as “completed download,” call it out. That is a factual overstatement. It matters even under a deferential standard.

Nexus: connecting a network event to a place and devices

Nexus has two steps in these cases. First, the IP address is linked to a subscriber. Second, the subscriber address is linked to devices.

That chain is common. It is also attackable.

This is where “nexus for device search warrant” issues live. Some are legal framing issues. Others are network engineering realities.

Step one: IP address to subscriber

Affidavits often rely on ISP records. They are usually subpoena returns.

You should confirm:

  • Dynamic vs. static assignment,
  • Lease start and end,
  • Time zone alignment, and
  • Whether carrier-grade NAT is possible.

If CGNAT is in play, it does not mean “no probable cause.” Still, it can undermine certainty. It can also support a narrower warrant.

Step two: subscriber to residence to device

Even if the subscriber is correct, the user is not automatic. Courts know this. But many still find nexus.

The best defense approach is usually not “IP address is meaningless.” A better approach is to identify concrete alternative users. Then tie them to the specific facts.

Examples include:

  • Guest access to Wi‑Fi,
  • Multiple adult occupants,
  • Business networks,
  • Open Wi‑Fi or weak passwords, and
  • Remote access software or compromise.

You should be careful here. You need evidence. But you should not ignore the network layer.

Partial download warrant affidavit: common overstatements to flag

If you are building a suppression or Franks record, focus on material claims. Not every mistake matters. The question is whether it mattered to the judge.

Here are recurring overstatements in a partial download warrant affidavit.

“Downloaded the file” when it was a partial download

This is the big one. If the logs show 10% completion, that matters. The affidavit can still establish probable cause. But it must say what happened.

“Single source” without showing exclusivity

If the tool connected to multiple peers, “single source” is misleading. If it tried multiple ports, note it. If it retried later, note it.

“Possession” language when the evidence is only transfer

A download proves transfer. It can support an inference of possession. Still, do not let an affidavit claim more than it shows.

If the affidavit uses “possessed” as a conclusion, look for the basis. This matters for both probable cause and charging narratives.

“Confirmed CSAM” without describing the confirmation method

Hash matching can be strong. But the method matters. A piece-based confirmation is different from a full-file hash match. A visual confirmation is different again.

Ask for the exact workflow. Ask for the logs that show it.

How to think about Franks in this setting

A Franks motion is not a general accuracy audit. It is about intentional or reckless falsehoods. It is also about material omissions.

The core test is well known [6]. But application is fact-driven.

In a partial download case, common Franks themes include:

  • Overstating completeness,
  • Omitting known tool limits,
  • Omitting time sync uncertainty, and
  • Omitting facts that weaken nexus.

If you see those, preserve them. Then decide if they are material.

Materiality is the real fight. It is also where experts help. They can explain what the logs do and do not show.

The good-faith backstop: why many close cases still lose suppression

Even when an affidavit is thin, suppression is not automatic. The good-faith exception often blocks it.

Courts apply the Leon framework [7]. They ask whether officers reasonably relied on a warrant.

That matters in partial download cases. A judge may still sign. An agent may still rely. Suppression may still be denied.

So, a realistic defense plan often has two tracks:

  • A targeted suppression or Franks effort, and
  • A trial strategy that attacks overstatement and attribution.

This is not “giving up.” It is sequencing.

What to demand in discovery (even before motions)

If you want to evaluate probable cause, you need the technical record. Ask for items that map to your issues.

At a minimum, ask for:

  • Torrential Downpour run logs for the download attempt
  • Any tool-generated summaries or “case reports”
  • The known-hash source reference used to label the file
  • ISP return records with lease details and time zones
  • Agent notes on time settings and verification steps

If the government claims single-source behavior, ask for proof. If they claim completion, ask for completion records. If they claim a specific hash, ask for the hash details. If you need a practical checklist of which structured artifacts tend to expose overstatements, see: Datawritten.xml and downloadstatus.xml.

Conclusion

In many cases, a single Torrential Downpour event will support a warrant. That remains true when the transfer was only partial. But the partial nature of the download changes what you should verify.

In a partial BitTorrent download probable cause review, start with accuracy. Confirm what the tool did. Confirm what the logs show. Then evaluate staleness and nexus with that foundation.

If you spot a probable cause from partial torrent download overstatement, preserve it. It may support a targeted Franks theory. It also may support strong cross-exam themes.

If you are litigating a partial torrent download probable cause warrant, Lucid Truth Technologies can help you map affidavit claims to the underlying logs and ISP records. Contact us using the LTT contact form: Contact.

References

[1] Supreme Court of the United States, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 1983. [Online]. Available: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/213/

[2] United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, United States v. Hoeffener, 950 F.3d 1037, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/19-1192/19-1192-2020-02-24.html

[3] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Reddick, 900 F.3d 636, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-10297/15-10297-2017-02-03.html

[4] United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Ewing, No. 24-11308, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/24-11308/24-11308-2025-06-23.html

[5] United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States v. Seiver, 692 F.3d 774, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/11-3780/11-3780-2012-12-18.html

[6] Supreme Court of the United States, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 1978. [Online]. Available: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/154/

[7] Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 1984. [Online]. Available: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/897/

Continue reading

This article is for informational purposes and does not provide legal advice. Every case turns on specific facts and controlling law in your jurisdiction. Work with qualified counsel and, where appropriate, a qualified expert.