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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT