The term "video and/or audio recording devices" in a search warrant may include videotapes and DVDs. In October 2010, the police allegedly downloaded files off a sharing network from an IP address that belonged to the defendant, David Csanadi. Officer Frank obtained a warrant to search Csanadi's residence and cottage for child porn. In April 2011, officers allegedly searched the residence and cottage and found pictures of young girls on Csanadi's refrigerator, and commercially produced and homemade porn with titles such as "Barely Legal," "Barefoot 20," "Young Muff" and "Teenage Peach Fuzz." One of the tapes allegedly depicted Csanadi as he sexually assaulted a girl. Csanadi was charged with risk of injury to a minor and sexual assault. Csanadi moved to suppress evidence found on DVDs, videotapes and 8 mm videotapes and argued that police only possessed probable cause to search for evidence of porn on his computer. Courts in other jurisdictions have rejected defendants' arguments that evidence that an individual has downloaded child porn on a computer is insufficient to establish probable cause to search for child porn in other formats. The District Court found that police officers reasonably interpreted the term "video and/or audio recording devices" in the search warrant as encompassing DVDs and videotapes. Probable cause existed for the police to search Csanadi's residence for "video and/or audio recording devices" in the form of videotapes and DVDs that contained child porn. The court also found it reasonably probable that even if the original search warrant had not permitted the officers to seize the videotapes and DVDs, a judge would have approved, if the officers had requested another search warrant that specifically mentioned the videotapes and DVDs. The court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.