State v. Newland, 2010 UT App 380

In May 2006 police recovered a stolen laptop at a vacant apartment; serial number linked it to Newland.
An officer initially glimpsed a text document on the laptop but did not review it; the document later disappeared from view.
Officer Jeffries later opened the laptop, searched folders, and found thumbnail images of naked females appearing under eighteen.
Newland gave voluntary consent to search the laptop for evidence, without being informed of the prior exploratory search.
A subsequent search confirmed child pornography; a warrant was obtained and the laptop sent to a forensics lab, revealing 21 pre-theft photographs stored under Newland's profile.
Newland was charged with three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and moved to suppress the evidence as fruit of an illegal search, which the trial court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent was tainted by the initial illegal search	Newland	Newland	Consent not obtained through exploitation; taint purged
Role of temporal proximity and defendant's knowledge of the illegality	Newland lacked awareness of the initial search	State	Lack of knowledge neutralizes temporal proximity
Was the officer's conduct purposeful or flagrant to trigger deterrence	Newland	State	Conduct negligent, not purposeful or flagrant; deterrence minimal

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (exploitation test for taint after illegality)
Arroyo v. Utah, 796 P.2d 684 (Utah 1990) (two-pronged Arroyo analysis for taint and consent)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (purpose and flagrancy and deterrence in consent after illegality)
State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256 (Utah 1993) (deterrent value of suppression; purpose and flagrancy emphasis)
State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125 (Utah 2002) (intervening circumstances and suppression analysis)
State v. Shoulderblade, 905 P.2d 289 (Utah 1995) (taint dissipation and balancing factors)