to copy, photograph, duplicate, or otherwise reproduce any property or material that constitutes child pornography ... so long as the Government makes the property or material reasonably available to the defendant. (B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), property or material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the defendant if the Government provides ample opportunity for inspection, viewing, and examination at a Government facility of the property or material by the defendant, his or her attorney, and any individual the defendant may seek to qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial. The constitutionality of the Act has been upheld in United, States v. Shrake, 515 F.3d 743, 745-46 (7th Cir.2008), and United States v. Johnson, 456 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1019 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (<HOLDING>). However, courts have been indulgent in
holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment holding that government must introduce relevant evidence in addition to the alleged pornographic images to prove that images depict real child holding that it may not holding that the act is constitutional because it restricts who may control the images but not what the defendant may introduce at trial