ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Defendant was convicted and sentenced on two counts of traveling in interstate commerce with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor female. Among other things, he challenged his conviction on the grounds that the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence gathered during a search of his computer and e-mail accounts.

Facts: During an investigation, U.S. Marshal Dallas Dallosta visited a Yahoo! chat room ostensibly established for adolescent girls to chat with one another. Dallosta came across one user with the handle "daddywantsagirl_veryynggirl." The user, who turned out to be North Carolina resident, Thomas Reid DeCarlo, stated in his profile that he was looking for a young girl with whom to start a "special family."

Dallosta, posing as a frustrated mother who recently had a 10-year-old daughter dumped on her, struck up an instant messaging and e-mail conversation with DeCarlo. Ultimately, Dallosta and DeCarlo agreed to meet in Memphis, Tennessee, where DeCarlo would pick up "Samantha." DeCarlo was arrested when he checked into the agreed-upon meeting place.

DeCarlo signed a consent form agreeing to a search of his computer and e-mail accounts, but ultimately moved to suppress the results of those searches. The trial court denied his motion, and DeCarlo was convicted on both counts of the indictment. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 293 and 180 months imprisonment, and subsequently appealed.

Issue(s): Whether the trial court erred in denying DeCarlo's motion to suppress.

Ruling: No, the trial court did not err.

Rationale: At trial, DeCarlo's motion to suppress was based on "the arguments that he was arrested without probable cause, his consent to search his home and computer was invalid and the search was conducted without a warrant, and his statements were involuntary and taken in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights." All of those arguments were rejected by the trial court.

On appeal, DeCarlo raised a new argument, that the arrest warrant was based on an affidavit containing a false statement. Specifically, DeCarlo challenged the statement in the affidavit which claimed that DeCarlo had promised to pay $100 for "Samantha." The Court of Appeals noted that since the argument had not been raised at trial, it need not be considered on appeal. Even it were properly preserved, the Court noted that the instant messaging exchange between DeCarlo and Dallosta could easily be construed as constituting an agreement by DeCarlo to pay $100 for "Samantha." In any case, the Court said, there was ample evidence in the affidavit to demonstrate probable cause to arrest DeCarlo.