ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Defendant was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse, sexual exploitation by a counselor, and sexual misconduct with juvenile offenders. A search warrant was issued for Bolsinger's home and police seized, among other things, his home computer. During a search of defendant's computer, police discovered numerous stories of males engaged in sexual acts with each other. Defendant's motion to suppress the fruits of the search was denied. Following his conviction, defendant appealed various decisions by the trial court, including the denial of his motion to suppress.

Facts: John Michael Bolsinger was the program supervisor of a highly structured state facility for delinquent boys, the Wittenmyer Youth Center. In 2001, the Iowa Dept. of Human Services investigated allegations of sexual abuse by Bolsinger. The investigation revealed that Bolsinger made a practice of taking boys into a private room and touch their genitals. In each instance, he asked permission of the boys and explained that he was conducting a physical examination. The boys testified that they would not have consented if they had known that he was doing this for his own sexual gratification; they also said that given the nature of the facility, it would be very difficult to say no to an instructor.

Based on the DHS investigation, local police officers obtained a warrant for Bolsinger's home. They seized a variety of items, including his computer. A search of the computer revealed numerous stories of men engaged in sexual acts with each other. Before trial, Bolsinger asked the court to suppress the fruits of the search, but the court refused. Following his conviction, defendant appealed various decisions by the trial court, including the denial of his motion to suppress.

Issue(s): Whether the trial court erred in denying Bolsinger's motion to suppress the fruits of the search of his computer.

Ruling: No, the trial court did not err.

Rationale: The Iowa Supreme Court gave short shrift to Bolsinger's challenge to the validity of the search warrant and its execution:

"We have considered the record and the defendant's arguments on the legality of the search warrant and on the execution of it and conclude the warrant was based on probable cause, was not based on false statements, and was not overbroad. Further, we conclude the officers properly executed the warrant. We reject Bolsinger's motion-to-suppress issue."