Commonwealth v. Hoppert
39 A.3d 358
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Investigation of an AOL user 'wersupr' led to emails sent by 'CJHOPPERT' containing child pornography attachments linked to Sallie Hoppert in Lancaster County, PA.
- Detective Savage obtained a May 16, 2008 search warrant for AOL records; five hours of 'CJHOPPERT' activity on November 23, 2007 were identified, with three offending emails and a closed AOL account.
- Detective Leed obtained a second warrant (July 16, 2008) to search Appellant Clyde J. Hoppert's Haskell Drive residence after linking Countryside Drive to the AOL account holder and noting relocation.
- Police recovered three computers; searches uncovered 183 images of child pornography, 60 images of child erotica, and 40 emails involving child pornography.
- Appellant moved to suppress evidence from both warrants and any statements; suppression denied in August 2010; bench trial resulted in guilty verdicts on 19 counts of dissemination and 2 counts of possession of child pornography.
- On appeal, Appellant challenged suppression on grounds of stale information for the first warrant, lack of nexus for the second warrant, and evidentiary linkage to his Haskell Drive residence; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the first warrant supported by probable cause? | Hoppert contends information was stale; AOL copies unlikely post-account closure. | Hoppert asserts lack of ongoing link and stale nexus to evidence. | First warrant supported by probable cause; not stale. |
| Was there probable cause linking the second warrant to Hoppert's Haskell Drive computer? | Hoppert argues no nexus between emails and his residence; no viewed emails at Haskell Drive. | Hoppert asserts sufficient nexus via login activity and relevant possession/transfer of child pornography. | Second warrant valid; probable cause established. |
| Were Hoppert's statements admissible after suppression rulings? | Statements tainted by unlawful searches; should be suppressed. | Statements were not fruits of unlawful searches; independent of suppression rulings. | Statements admissible; not fruit of unlawful searches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances probable cause standard)
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1986) (adopted totality test for Article I, § 8)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (good-faith exception; deference to magistrate's findings)
- Commonwealth v. Novak, 335 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975) (stale information; continuing conduct required for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Gomolekoff, 910 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (child pornography staleness; ability to retrieve deleted images)
- Commonwealth v. Janda, 14 A.3d 147 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (staleness analysis for older online information; want fair probability not immediate freshness)
- Commonwealth v. Benson, 10 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in another's cellular bill when not owner)