Hesrick v. State
308 Ga. App. 363
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Two officers respond to a domestic dispute; Hoffman claims Hesrick evicted him and alleges prior child pornography involvement.
- Hesrick allows officers inside; Hoffman reports Hesrick looked at child pornography on a computer and may destroy evidence.
- Hesrick moves to suppress seizure of a laptop and a desktop computer found in plain view during the initial visit.
- Sergeant guidance leads officers to seize computers in plain view pending warrant; Hesrick denies having an external hard drive.
- A December 2, 2008 warrant is obtained for digital storage devices; Hesrick later admits destroying floppy disks and the external drive.
- Trial court finds exigent circumstances based on fear of imminent destruction of child pornography; conviction for sexual exploitation of minors and false statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances supported warrantless seizure of computers | Hesrick | Hesrick | Exigent circumstances supported seizure |
| Whether the plain-view seizure argument was proper | Hesrick | Hesrick | moot; already resolved by exigency ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigent circumstances in home searches; objective reasonableness)
- James v. State, 294 Ga.App. 656 (Ga. App. 2008) (rape cases involve vulnerable evidence and destruction risk)
- United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2002) (government bears burden to prove exception to warrant requirement)
- Lawrence v. State, 298 Ga.App. 94 (Ga. App. 2009) (officers’ perspective and quick developing situation govern reasonableness)
- Postell v. State, 279 Ga.App. 275 (Ga. App. 2006) (suppression rulings may consider trial testimony)