ILNews

COA cites 'good faith' exception for child pornography search warrant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, holding that even though a search warrant was invalid, the evidence it produced is admissible due to a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule.

On May 1, 2009, Bryan Johnson took his computer to Computer Bay, a repair shop in Schererville. An employee there found a folder on Johnson’s computer titled: “Had sex with a 12 year old_file.” Based on his co-workers’ recommendations, the employee reported Johnson to the Schererville Police Department.

A police officer visited the store and checked some of the folders on the computer. He found no images of child pornography, but was instructed to bring the hard drive to the police station to be held as evidence. Subsequently, another officer – Detective Patrick Rosado – took over the investigation.

Rosado filled out search warrant and search warrant affidavit forms and submitted them to the Schererville Town Court on May 19, 2009, to be signed by Judge Kenneth Anderson. After Rosado received the search warrant and affidavit back from Judge Anderson, he picked up the computer tower, which was still at Computer Bay. Detective Alva Whited, a forensic examiner with the Indiana State Police, searched the computer and found images of child pornography within the folder that initially caused the Computer Bay employee to call police. Whited found 173 folders, each containing approximately 1,000 photos. Many of the photos were animated or digital, but Whited found at least two live photos involving young children and adults engaging in sexual acts.

In the case of Bryan Johnson v. State of Indiana, No. 45A05-1012-CR-816, Johnson argued that the images found on his computer should have been suppressed because of an improperly filed search warrant. When Rosado submitted his affidavit and search warrant to the Schererville Town Court, he did not see Judge Anderson. Instead, he submitted the forms to one of Judge Anderson’s office employees and received them back shortly thereafter. The appeals court stated that Rosado was not familiar with the policies of the Schererville Town Court and assumed that the court employee had taken care of everything necessary to properly file a search warrant. However, when he received the forms back, neither form had a file mark, and the Schererville Court later could not find either form in its record, which indicates the search warrant was never filed.

The appeals court referred to the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Callender v. State, 193 Ind. 91, 138 N.E. 817, 818 (1923), which states that if property is secured by a search and seizure under the pretext of a search warrant, and the warrant is held invalid for any reason, then the property seized may not be used as evidence against a defendant. Generally, the exclusionary rule requires that a search conducted pursuant to an invalid search warrant results in the suppression of any items seized. Hoop v. State, 909 N.E.2d 463, 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

However, in Johnson, the state argued that the images on Johnson’s computer were admissible under the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule – Indiana Code 35-37-4-5 – which allows evidence to be admitted if an officer sought the warrant under probable cause and believed the search warrant to be valid. The appeals court agreed, affirming the trial court’s denial of Johnson’s motion to suppress.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT