ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to two counts of dissemination of sexually explicit material and four counts of possession of sexually explicit material. He then appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his house and on his computer on the grounds that the search warrant affidavit contained stale information.

Facts: A warrant to search Mark Wright's apartment and seize "all computer hardware and software, digital cameras and recorders, and pornography." The affidavit supporting the warrant was based on a report by a friend of Wright's, who said that she had accidentally discovered child pornography while helping Wright with his computer.

Wright's friend did not report her observation to the police at the time. Later, however, she heard that Wright had touched her daughter's thigh and rubbed her shoulders during a trip to the movies. Her daughter also reported that Wright had followed her home from school several times. Concerned about Wright's actions towards her daughter, she reported her concerns to the police, nearly three months after the initial discovery of child pornography.

Based on the friend's report and some much earlier complaints involving Wright and minor children, the Bath police obtained a warrant to search Wright's home. The subsequent investigation resulted in the discovery of numerous images of child pornography.

Issue(s): Whether the trial court erred in denying Wright's motion to suppress the search warrant on the grounds that the affidavit contained stale information.

Ruling: No, the trial court did not err.

Rationale: Wright argued that there was nothing in the affidavit to suggest that the contraband images would still be on his computer nearly 3 months after his friend saw them. The affidavit did contain assertions by a police expert that pedophiles and collectors of child pornography retain such material for long periods, but Wright rejected both characterizations, saying that there was no evidence in the affidavit to suggest that he fit either category.

The Supreme Judicial Court stated that the question of staleness in the context of child pornography was an issue of first impression in Maine. The Court noted that in other jurisdictions, courts have accepted affidavits containing older information than at in issue in Wright's case. In this case, the trial court reasonably accepted the expert testimony that collectors of child pornography tend to keep such information "indefinitely." In addition, the finding of probable cause for an ongoing violation was bolstered by the reports of Wright's "improper and questionable contacts with children."