2020 IL App (2d) 170379
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- On Sept. 30, 2013, three‑year‑old M.G. was abducted from outside her apartment, later returned; medical exam revealed blood and vaginal redness consistent with penetration and male DNA matching Jose E. Reyes was recovered.
- Witnesses and surveillance tied a black Hyundai (partial plate “7”) to the abduction; investigators traced the car to Reyes and located him at work.
- Police seized a Huawei cell phone, a Garmin GPS unit, and a media player from Reyes’s vehicle. Detective Hergott’s seven‑page affidavit sought a warrant to search those devices for evidence of predatory criminal sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping, unlawful restraint, and related data (calls, texts, images, GPS). The affidavit discussed digital storage/GPS and behaviors of child‑pornography collectors but did not allege the phone was used during the offense.
- A forensic analyst found a ~3‑minute video on the phone showing M.G. naked on Reyes’s lap with his penis in contact with her vagina; stills and video formed the basis for child‑pornography counts.
- Reyes moved to suppress arguing no nexus and overbreadth; the trial court denied suppression, Reyes waived a jury, was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated kidnapping, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, two counts of filming child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography, and was sentenced. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reyes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / nexus to search phone | Affidavit + device recovery from car + common‑sense inferences established a fair probability the phone contained GPS, photos, videos, or other evidence of the offenses | Affidavit lacked any fact that Reyes used the phone during the offense; no witness saw recording; device found two days later so no nexus | Warrant supported probable cause to search the phone (at least for GPS); phone’s presence in vehicle and nature of smartphones supported reasonable inference phone contained evidence |
| Particularity / scope (video files) | Warrant authorized seizure of GPS/maps/images and searching likely locations for that data; investigators could reasonably examine file locations where GPS or media are stored | Even if GPS justified, that did not authorize a full search of videos/photos or texts; warrant was overbroad — "cut‑and‑paste" boilerplate | Court held video files were a reasonable place to search for GPS and other evidence; forensic analyst lawfully examined video files and discovered incriminating images in plain view |
| Good‑faith exception | Officers sought and obtained a warrant based on affidavit — prima facie evidence of good faith reliance | Affidavit was boilerplate and possibly recycled; lack of nexus meant no reasonable officer could rely on it | Even assuming marginal defects, officers acted in objective good faith; exclusion not warranted (alternative affirmance) |
| One‑act, one‑crime (two filming counts) | — (prosecution treated two distinct depictions as separate offenses) | Two convictions arise from the same recording and should be merged under one‑act/one‑crime | Convictions stand: recording produced two distinct pornographic depictions (vagina alone and penis contacting vagina), each supports a separate offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones generally require a warrant; they hold extensive private data)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (scope of search tied to object of search and where it may be found)
- United States v. Burgess, 576 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2009) (computer searches may include locations where the sought content is reasonably likely stored)
- United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2011) (opening folders reasonably likely to contain described evidence; plain‑view discovery)
- People v. Clendenin, 238 Ill. 2d 302 (2010) (private review of media can permit broader police examination; file names consistent with contraband supported further search)
- People v. King, 66 Ill. 2d 551 (1977) (one‑act, one‑crime framework)
- People v. Griffin, 178 Ill. 2d 65 (1997) (definition of probable cause for search warrants)
- People v. Taggart, 233 Ill. App. 3d 530 (1992) (seizure/search of materials likely to lead to further evidence in child‑molestation context)
- United States v. Colbert, 605 F.3d 573 (8th Cir. 2010) (recognizing a commonsense link between contemporaneous child enticement/molestation and possession of child pornography)