At a Walmart, police encountered William Winslow trying to print sexualized images of children. He consented to a search of his bag and thumb drives, where an officer found child pornography; the officer could not access Winslow’s laptop. Fourteen months later, a GBI agent searched the laptop under a warrant and found two videos, leading to four convictions based on possession of each video on both its download date and the date police seized the laptop. The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the convictions, concluding that the trial court could find Winslow’s consent to search the bag and its contents continued to the later forensic laptop search because he never withdrew it. The Court rejected his facial cruel-and-unusual-punishment challenge to the statutory sentencing range, but did not reach his as-applied challenge after vacating the sentences. Under Edvalson, simultaneous possession of multiple videos constituted one unit of prosecution, so the two counts based on possession of separate videos at the same time had to merge. The Court vacated all sentences and remanded for resentencing. Presiding Justice Peterson dissented from the suppression ruling, arguing the trial court should make explicit findings on whether consent at Walmart covered a forensic search 14 months later; three Justices joined.