State v. Henz
Background
- In 2014 Tumblr and Google reported to NCMEC that identified users had posted apparent child pornography; the reports included usernames and IP addresses.
- NMAG investigation linked the usernames and IPs to James Henz (aka James Medina) and Albuquerque addresses.
- Detective Hartsock obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit recounting the provider tips, associated IP/subscriber data, and identifying information.
- Execution of the warrant recovered multiple electronic devices containing ~40 images of child pornography; Henz admitted possession and operating the reported accounts.
- The district court granted Henz’s motion to suppress, finding the affidavit insufficiently descriptive and lacking independent verification that the images met New Mexico’s child pornography statute.
- The State appealed; the court reversed, holding the warrant was supported by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause from provider tips | Provider reports + corroborating IP/subscriber data gave substantial basis for probable cause | Affidavit lacked detail about images and independent verification; label "child pornography" insufficient | Reversed suppression; affidavit provided substantial basis for probable cause when read as a whole |
| Level of image description required | Detailed description not always necessary where provider reports describe "sexual acts" or other clearly proscribed conduct | Issuing court or affiant must view images or include detailed factual descriptions so court can independently assess lasciviousness | Descriptions like "explicit images of children in sexual acts" are sufficiently specific; issuing court need not personally view images though it is preferable |
| Reliability/credibility of providers (Tumblr/Google) | Federal reporting mandate and first‑hand provider review render providers reliable, akin to identified citizen informants | Mandated reporting creates economic incentive to over‑report and providers report under federal (not state) law, so reliability is diminished | Providers are credible hearsay sources and their reports are reliably gathered under federal obligations |
| Juvenile‑court jurisdiction | State: jurisdiction proper in district court because possession/charging occurred after Henz turned 18 | Henz: offense is continuing from when he was 17 so children’s court has exclusive jurisdiction | District court has jurisdiction; Henz was over 18 when charged and possession was alleged on that date |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williamson, 212 P.3d 376 (N.M. 2009) (review standard for probable cause affidavit)
- State v. Price, 470 P.3d 265 (N.M. 2020) (warrant validity depends on affidavit showing probable cause)
- State v. Haidle, 285 P.3d 668 (N.M. 2012) (hearsay-based affidavits must show informant credibility and factual basis)
- United States v. Battershell, 457 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (when images depict clearly defined sexual acts, concise descriptions can suffice)
- United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2011) (conclusory image descriptions insufficient absent other supporting facts)
- United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. 2012) (issuing court can evaluate images by viewing, sufficient description, or other tying facts)
- United States v. Brunette, 256 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (terse, conclusory descriptions of lasciviousness inadequate)
- United States v. Lowe, 516 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2008) (issuing court need not view images if affidavit provides sufficient description)