State v. Mello
162 N.H. 115
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Detective McLaughlin created a profile on a child-exploitation investigation network that depicted a fourteen-year-old boy with a related photo.
- In October 2008, Mello added the detective’s fictitious profile as a friend and exchanged sexually explicit messages and images via email and real-time chat.
- Using the defendant’s email, McLaughlin identified the IP address and Comcast subscriber location in Nashua, New Hampshire, a New Jersey-based company.
- A district court warrant authorized a search for subscriber information held by Comcast; Comcast provided subscriber data to the police.
- With that information, McLaughlin obtained a second warrant to search Mello’s home for computer equipment; evidence led to four counts of delivery of child pornography.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to issue a warrant to an out-of-state corporation. | Mello argues the warrant exceeded district court authority. | Mello contends the district court’s warrants were defective and overbroad. | Warrant defective; district court lacked jurisdiction to target out-of-state records. |
| Whether the information obtained from Comcast violated privacy rights under Article 19 and the Fourth Amendment. | Mello maintained a reasonable privacy interest in subscriber information. | State contends no reasonable expectation of privacy since information was voluntarily disclosed. | No reasonable expectation of privacy; information voluntarily disclosed to ISP is not protected. |
| What are the proper mechanisms to obtain records located outside New Hampshire? | State did not follow available statutory procedures. | N/A (defendant's focus is on privacy and jurisdiction). | Two valid procedures exist (RSA 7:6-b for carrier records; RSA ch. 613 for out-of-state witnesses); neither was used. |
| Does the State Constitution provide greater privacy protections than the Federal Constitution in this context? | Defendant argues for stronger state protection based on Article 19. | N/A (State contends alignment with federal precedent). | State and federal protections align; no greater protection extending to subscriber data in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ball, 124 N.H. 226 (1983) (develops Article 19 analysis guidance)
- State v. Goss, 150 N.H. 46 (2003) (two-part test for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- State v. Robinson, 158 N.H. 792 (2009) (privacy considerations under Article 19)
- State v. Valenzuela, 130 N.H. 175 (1987) (no privacy interest in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties)
- State v. Gubitosi, 152 N.H. 673 (2005) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in business records held by ISP)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no Fourth Amendment protection for numbers dialed to telephone company)
- State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386 (2008) (state-level privacy stance diverges from NH approach)
- United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2008) (no reasonable privacy in information disclosed to ISP)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2008) (context on data collection limits and privacy expectations)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (agent-informer principle in privacy jurisprudence)
- Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966) (agent-informer privacy considerations)