State v. Hanisko, 187 Conn. App. 237

In Nov. 2008 Wyoming task force data identified an IP-linked computer as a "download candidate" for ~25 suspected child pornography files; one file matched known child-pornography on a DVD provided to Connecticut police.
Connecticut detectives identified the subscriber address (50 Carpenter Lane, Wallingford) and surveilled the property in Aug. 2009; the defendant was one of several residents.
On Sept. 10, 2009 detectives obtained and on Sept. 11, 2009 executed a search warrant at the property; the defendant admitted using Limewire to download pornography and police seized multiple hard drives and disks.
Forensic examination of the seized media was delayed by a laboratory backlog; detectives examined the items in 2013 and discovered hours of child‑pornography video.
The state sought an arrest warrant in Jan. 2014; the defendant was arrested in Mar. 2014 and tried in Mar. 2017; he moved to suppress the 2009 seizure evidence that morning and later sought acquittal based on alleged due‑process/pre‑accusation delay.
Trial court denied suppression and denied the acquittal motion; defendant convicted of possession of child pornography (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-196e) and appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Hanisko's Argument	Held
Whether the 2009 search‑warrant affidavit was stale (lack of probable cause)	Affidavit showed repeated peer‑to‑peer downloads over several days, a confirmed match to known child‑pornography, and included trained‑officer attestations that collectors hoard files and deleted data often remains electronically stored	Affidavit relied on an isolated, year‑old occurrence; lapse of ~10 months made the information stale and improbable that files remained	Court held affidavit was not stale; repeated download indications, a confirmed match, and affiants’ experiental statements supported a reasonable inference files remained; probable cause existed
Whether pre‑accusation delay (2009 search → 2014 arrest) violated due process so as to require acquittal	State: claim is waived because defendant failed to raise a pretrial motion to dismiss; merits not preserved	Hanisko: delay was oppressive, unjustified, and prejudicial; state offered no adequate reason for delay	Court held claim was unreviewable on appeal due to waiver; defendant should have raised it in a timely pretrial motion; no relief granted

State v. Holley, 324 Conn. 344 (Conn. 2017) (plenary review of legal question whether affidavit supports probable cause)
State v. Buddhu, 264 Conn. 449 (Conn. 2003) (staleness assessed case‑by‑case; continuous/protracted activity reduces staleness concern)
United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) (single, inadvertent website visit insufficient to show collector proclivity or overcome staleness)
United States v. Morgan, 842 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2016) (delay did not render child‑pornography affidavit stale where collectors tend to retain files)
United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885 (6th Cir. 2014) (child‑pornography investigations are not fleeting; affidavit not stale)
United States v. Burkhart, 602 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2010) (passage of time alone insufficient to show staleness)
United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2007) (one‑year‑old information not necessarily stale; collector retention principle relevant)
State v. Shields, 308 Conn. 678 (Conn. 2013) (issuing judge may rely on affiant’s training/experience about child‑pornography possessors)