Stanley R. Chesney v. State of Mississippi
2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 277
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Police obtained a warrant (based on an informant, John Paul Dove, and a complaint by Sherri Stewart) to search Stanley Chesney’s residence for a computer in an identity-theft investigation; Chesney told officers his laptop was at Gator Computers.
- Officers seized the laptop from the repair shop pursuant to the first warrant; the store clerk (Matthew Kaulfers) told police file names in the recycle bin suggested minors were depicted.
- A police technician (Stokes) viewed images on the seized laptop; police then obtained a second warrant, and the cybercrime division confirmed five child‑pornography images.
- Chesney confessed after being told about the discovered images and was indicted, tried, and convicted on five counts of child exploitation.
- On appeal the court found (1) the jury instructions omitted venue and (2) the first search warrant lacked probable cause because the affidavit failed to show the informant’s reliability; evidence derived from the first illegal warrant (including the second warrant’s results and Chesney’s confession) was suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chesney) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction omitted venue element | Instruction failed to tell jury venue (Neshoba County) must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt | No contemporaneous objection; error waived | Reversal: omission of venue is plain error; new trial required |
| Probable cause for first search warrant | Affidavit relied on an untested, previously unknown informant (Dove) without indicia of reliability or independent corroboration | Stewart’s complaint and other information supplied sufficient credible information | Probable cause lacking; first warrant invalid |
| Admissibility of evidence obtained via second warrant and confession (fruit of poisonous tree) | Evidence and confession were derivative of the invalid first warrant and must be suppressed | Second warrant and clerk’s tip provided independent probable cause; good‑faith/inevitable‑discovery exceptions apply | Evidence (images, clerk’s statements, confession) suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree; no independent source; exceptions not applicable; convictions reversed and rendered |
| Standing / expectation of privacy after private repair | Chesney retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in laptop contents; police exceeded any scope of private search when officers viewed files | Giving laptop to repair shop frustrated privacy; clerk’s viewing removed expectation | Chesney had standing; police viewing exceeded scope of any private search; Fourth Amendment implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusionary rule bars physical and verbal evidence derived from unlawful searches)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent‑source/attenuation analysis for derivative evidence)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (private search doctrine; government may be limited to the scope of private party’s intrusion)
- Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980) (FBI viewing of material beyond private parties’ inspection can violate Fourth Amendment)
- Roebuck v. State, 915 So.2d 1132 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (informant allegations without indicia of reliability do not supply probable cause for a warrant)