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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT