Commonwealth v. Guastucci, 486 Mass. 22

On March 15, 2017 an unknown Skype user with screen name live:boullett_1 uploaded an image that NCMEC flagged as child pornography; NCMEC forwarded the tip to Massachusetts State Police.
An ISP subpoenaed in May 2017 tied the IP address used for the upload to a subscriber at a Tyngsboro residence registered to the defendant's spouse; the Skype screen name did not match account user names.
Trooper MacDonald viewed and confirmed the image as child pornography in September 2017; on October 18, 2017 he applied for a warrant to search all computers and digital storage at the residence, relying on the March upload and affidavit allegations about collectors and forensic recoverability.
Police executed the warrant on October 19, 2017 and seized the defendant's laptop and a flash drive; images of child pornography were found and the defendant was indicted on two counts of possession.
The defendant moved to suppress, arguing the seven-month gap rendered the affidavit stale; the Superior Court denied the motion, the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Guastucci's Argument	Held
Whether a seven-month interval between a single online upload of child pornography and a warrant to search the uploader's home rendered the affidavit stale so that probable cause was lacking	Uploading the image to Skype (a chat/file-share service) shows intentional possession/distribution and supports an inference the uploader is a collector who would retain images, so a warrant seven months later is not stale	A single upload is insufficient to show the uploader is a collector; nothing in affidavit shows propensity to retain images and seven months is too long	The court held the affidavit was not stale: the act of uploading to a communication/file-sharing service supported a reasonable inference of intentional possession and retention, so probable cause existed at the time of the warrant

United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) (collector inference in child pornography staleness analysis; need evidence suspect is "interested in" images)
United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (generalized collector propensity is relevant only if affidavit shows suspect likely a collector)
United States v. Coreas, 419 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2005) (proclivity relevant only with probable cause suspect is a collector)
United States v. Bynum, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2010) (uploading child pornography to the Internet supports probable cause to search)
United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2013) (uploading to file-sharing network distinguishes intentional collector from inadvertent receipt)
United States v. Vosburgh, 602 F.3d 512 (3d Cir. 2010) (collectors unlikely to discard images quickly; staleness analysis differs from fleeting crimes)
United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2009) (possession of child pornography is not typically fleeting)
Commonwealth v. Matias, 440 Mass. 787 (2004) (two-factor staleness framework: nature of activity and nature of the items sought)
Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (2009) (facts must be closely related in time to warrant issuance)
Commonwealth v. Anthony, 451 Mass. 59 (2008) (probable cause standard for warrants)