253 A.3d 1273
R.I.2021Background
- In June 2015 RISP/ICAC monitors detected suspected child‑pornography files being shared from IP address 100.10.41.6; Det. Macera reviewed downloaded files, concluded they were child pornography, and obtained from Verizon that the IP was assigned to Heather Reisner at 15 Harding Street (defendant’s home).
- Macera’s affidavit explained peer‑to‑peer networks and hash values, listed the file Jamtien.mpeg (with a hash) and described it as “a prepubescent female on the beach removing her bathing suit exposing her genitals,” but did not attach images/video or state the hash matched a known confirmed child‑pornography hash.
- A district judge issued a search warrant; RISP executed it on August 3, 2015, seized the defendant’s computer, and forensic analysis found seven videos of child pornography; Reisner later stipulated the seized videos were child pornography.
- Reisner moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause (relying on Brunette); the trial justice denied suppression, applying Dost factors and finding the affidavit “barely” sufficient; portions of Reisner’s post‑invocation interrogation were excluded at trial.
- Jury convicted Reisner of possession; he was sentenced (five years suspended with probation) and appealed; the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the conviction, holding the affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for probable cause and declined to decide whether to adopt the federal good‑faith (Leon) exception under state law.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Reisner's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Det. Macera’s affidavit established probable cause to search 15 Harding St. | Affidavit, detective’s training/experience, IP‑to‑address link, peer‑to‑peer/hash background and the described file suffice to show a fair probability of contraband. | Description was conclusory/too terse; magistrate lacked images or a confirmed hash link; Brunette requires images or detailed description; probable cause lacking. | Majority: Affidavit insufficient—description (12 words) showed nudity only, lacked basis to assess lasciviousness; vacated conviction. Court declined to resolve good‑faith exception. |
| Whether prosecutor’s opening reference to excluded interrogation required mistrial | (State argued harmless / not prejudicial) | Prosecutor’s reference implicated excluded statement and warranted mistrial. | Not reached—decision vacated on warrant ground; appellate court did not decide mistrial issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brunette, 256 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001) (search‑warrant affidavit insufficient where images not shown and description merely parrots statutory language)
- In re Austin B., 208 A.3d 1178 (R.I. 2019) (affiant’s view of images plus training/experience can support probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) (six‑factor guide for evaluating lasciviousness)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable‑cause inquiry uses totality of the circumstances)
- New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 866 (U.S. 1986) (magistrate need not personally view allegedly obscene materials; review ensures substantial basis for probable cause)
- United States v. Morel, 922 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (recent First Circuit treatment: ‘‘best practice’’ to append images or give detailed descriptions, but not a constitutional rule)
- United States v. Amirault, 173 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (discussing Dost factors in child‑pornography context)