ILNews

COA upholds denial of motion to suppress

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s argument that the state’s courts should recognize a privacy interest in the subscriber information of an Internet service provider.

On interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress, Monty Rader challenged the warrant issued to search his Greencastle home after he had several sexually suggestive chats with an undercover police officer posing as a teenage girl. He was charged with two counts of Class C felony child solicitation.

After chatting with Rader online, the officer subpoenaed Yahoo! to get the account information for the user name “monty20064;” Yahoo! said it was registered to “Mr. Monty Rader” in Greencastle and provided the IP address used to log into the account. The detective then subpoenaed the Internet service provider to get account information with that IP address. It came back registered to Kenneth Rader in Greencastle, who is Rader’s father.

The detective used this information to get a search warrant of the address connected to the IP address.

In Monty Rader v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0907-CR-691, Rader claimed that there wasn’t a sufficient nexus between his home and the alleged criminal activity to justify issuing the search warrant. But the probable cause affidavit explained that the account for the user name chatting with the undercover officer was registered in Rader’s name, and the IP address connected to the user name is associated with Rader’s address. The judges also found the lack of listing the actual IP addressed used by monty20064 wasn’t a fatal omission.

“… the IP address used to log in to the monty20064 account was, on the dates in question, assigned to Rader’s home,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias. “From this information, the issuing magistrate could properly link the criminal activity of the monty20064 account to both Monty Rader and the address where Rader lived.”

Rader also acknowledged that the Indiana Supreme Court has held a prosecutor can properly secure information from a third party, such as an ISP, by issuing a subpoena duces tecum, Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131, 1138 (Ind. 2000). Instead, Rader wanted the appellate court to adopt the holding of the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Reid, 945 A.2d 26, 27 (N.J. 2008), which held under the search and seizure provisions of that state’s constitution, citizens had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information they provide to ISPs.

But that ruling also found law enforcement could satisfy the state’s constitutional requirements by serving a grand jury subpoena on an ISP, a similar ruling to the holding in Oman. The judges also declined to adopt the New Jersey holding because it’s beyond their authority.

“Rader concedes that Oman would permit the sort of subpoenas issued in the present case; he simply thinks Oman was decided incorrectly. If there is a change that should be made in the case law in this regard, it is a change that must come from our supreme court,” wrote Judge Mathias.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT