Court denies motion to suppress in child pornography case
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A motion to suppress a search that led to the alleged discovery of child pornography on the computer of a Hillsboro man was overruled Friday during a hearing in Highland County Common Pleas Court.
Dana Jeter, 52, appeared for a suppression hearing before Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss, during which the judge determined that Jeter's fourth amendment rights were not violated because there was no actual search, and therefore a warrant was not needed.
Jeter, a physical therapist, was indicated in January on 17 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, all felonies of the second degree.
His attorney, Ronald Frey, filed a motion to suppress, arguing that Jeter's Constitutional rights were violated when law enforcement utilized software on Dec. 27, 2010 to view files on his computer, and that a search warrant executed on Jan. 18, 2011, lacked probable cause because it "relied upon the results compiled by the software."
Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins told the court that files that were observed with the software by law enforcement in December were in a "shared" folder on Jeter's computer and were available for access through a file-sharing network that Jeter was a member of.
Det. Dave Frattare, of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) out of Cuyahoga County, testified that the investigation into Jeter's computer initiated when he saw an IP (Internet Protocol) Address (a number assigned to individual computers, unique to that device) that would ultimately be identified as Jeter's was identified in a database as having downloaded material and used keywords relating to child pornography.
Frattare testified that he used a software program called Roundup and searched files on a software-sharing network known as "Gnutella."
Collins questioned Frattare on the nature of the network, and they likened it to sharing music online. Frattare testified that when a person is a member of the network, another member searching for specific files has access to other members' shared files.
Collins said that file-sharing networks are most often used for music and movies, and she gave an example of searching for Beatles music and specifically typing in "Yellow Submarine." Any member of the shared network who had "Yellow Submarine" would come up, and the file could be downloaded.
"But in this case, it wasn't music, it was child pornography," Collins said.
Frattare testified that because the files that were allegedly on Jeter's computer were in the "shared" folder, they were there with the intent to be shared. Also, settings had to be deliberately set to allow the file sharing process.
On cross-examination, Frey questioned Frattare on how the software worked, who developed it, and whether or not he could say with certainty that the software did not search documents on computers that were not in the "shared" folder. Frattare said that he was not aware of a circumstance in which the software had done that.
Frey asked several questions regarding the development of the Roundup software, the "source code" that it operated with, and who owned it. Collins objected, asking for the relevance of that line of questioning. Coss sustained the objection and said the line of questioning was not relevant.
"The only thing that is relevant is whether or not there was a search, and whether or not the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy," Coss said. "This might seem fascinating to you, but it's irrelevant to me."
Frey said that he felt the development of and how the software works was the heart of the matter, and that the defense had only learned certain things about the software on Friday.
"I don't permit a general fishing expedition on suppression hearings," Coss said.
Frey asked another question regarding how the software worked.
Collins objected, saying that was irrelevant because the software was not needed to conduct a search of the files, and that any person, even if they were not law enforcement, could view the files if they belonged to the network.
"But that's not what happened here," Frey said. "They used the software to view the files. It's exactly what matters."
Coss sustained Collins' objection and told Frey to move on to another point.
Attempting to continue, Frey said, "Your honor, if I may ..."
"No, you may not," Coss said.
Frey paused for a moment and then said, "Your honor, I don't know how to proceed."
Coss said to proceed in a different direction. Frey said that he felt the questioning was relevant.
"You're not going to argue with me," Coss said. "I told you three times, and this is the last time. If you bring it up again, I'll hold you in contempt."
Frey asked Frattare how he could be certain, if he didn't know how the software worked, that it was not looking at files that were not in the shared folder. Frattare said he had never heard of that happening before. Frey then asked about the database where Frattare initially encountered the IP address. Frattare said that there is a database that keeps track of IP addresses that law enforcement agencies in other cities and states identify as having downloaded illegal images. While he did not know which law enforcement agency initially identified the address, he could find that out before trial. He was also asked how many times they executed a search warrant based on the software's findings and did not actually find any illegal images. Frattare said he couldn't say specifically, but probably less than 10.
He then asked Frattare how he would know if the system was working correctly. Frattare said that he didn't know.
The state then called Brandon Hoyt, a computer forensic specialist at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. He testified regarding the physical search of Jeter's house and the computers confiscated during the search. Hoyt said he did a field analysis of the computer and testified that he found pornographic images of children on a drive on the computer in the shared folder. He also found a file sharing program called 360 Share Pro that had been downloaded.
Det. Sergeant Denny Kirk from the Highland County Sheriff's Office also testified on the execution of the search warrant.
After hearing arguments on the case, Coss ruled in favor of the state, saying that there was no expectation of privacy because the images were in the shared folder. He also stated that the reason the investigators knew the software was working was "by applying common sense" because "if they were able to view the files, the software was working correctly."
Following the hearing, Frey proffered to the court's record his objections as to why the line of questioning regarding the software's development and ownership was relevant.
Jeter is scheduled for a final pretrial Aug. 3, and a three-day jury trial Aug. 22 in Highland County Common Please Court.
A motion to suppress a search that led to the alleged discovery of child pornography on the computer of a Hillsboro man was overruled Friday during a hearing in Highland County Common Pleas Court.
Dana Jeter, 52, appeared for a suppression hearing before Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss, during which the judge determined that Jeter's fourth amendment rights were not violated because there was no actual search, and therefore a warrant was not needed.
Jeter, a physical therapist, was indicted in January on 17 counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, all felonies of the second degree.
His attorney, Ronald Frey, filed a motion to suppress, arguing that Jeter's Constitutional rights were violated when law enforcement utilized software on Dec. 27, 2010 to view files on his computer, and that a search warrant executed on Jan. 18, 2011, lacked probable cause because it "relied upon the results compiled by the software."
Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins told the court that files that were observed with the software by law enforcement in December were in a "shared" folder on Jeter's computer and were available for access through a file-sharing network that Jeter was a member of.
Det. Dave Frattare, of the Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) out of Cuyahoga County, testified that the investigation into Jeter's computer initiated when he saw an IP (Internet Protocol) Address (a number assigned to individual computers, unique to that device) that would ultimately be identified as Jeter's was identified in a database as having downloaded material and used keywords relating to child pornography.
Frattare testified that he used a software program called Roundup and searched files on a software-sharing network known as "Gnutella."
Collins questioned Frattare on the nature of the network, and they likened it to sharing music online. Frattare testified that when a person is a member of the network, another member searching for specific files has access to other members' shared files.
Collins said that file-sharing networks are most often used for music and movies, and she gave an example of searching for Beatles music and specifically typing in "Yellow Submarine." Any member of the shared network who had "Yellow Submarine" would come up, and the file could be downloaded.
"But in this case, it wasn't music, it was child pornography," Collins said.
Frattare testified that because the files that were allegedly on Jeter's computer were in the "shared" folder, they were there with the intent to be shared. Also, settings had to be deliberately set to allow the file sharing process.
On cross-examination, Frey questioned Frattare on how the software worked, who developed it, and whether or not he could say with certainty that the software did not search documents on computers that were not in the "shared" folder. Frattare said that he was not aware of a circumstance in which the software had done that.
Frey asked several questions regarding the development of the Roundup software, the "source code" that it operated with, and who owned it. Collins objected, asking for the relevance of that line of questioning. Coss sustained the objection and said the line of questioning was not relevant.
"The only thing that is relevant is whether or not there was a search, and whether or not the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy," Coss said. "This might seem fascinating to you, but it's irrelevant to me."
Frey said that he felt the development of and how the software works was the heart of the matter, and that the defense had only learned certain things about the software on Friday.
"I don't permit a general fishing expedition on suppression hearings," Coss said.
Frey asked another question regarding how the software worked.
Collins objected, saying that was irrelevant because the software was not needed to conduct a search of the files, and that any person, even if they were not law enforcement, could view the files if they belonged to the network.
"But that's not what happened here," Frey said. "They used the software to view the files. It's exactly what matters."
Coss sustained Collins' objection and told Frey to move on to another point.
Attempting to continue, Frey said, "Your honor, if I may ..."
"No, you may not," Coss said.
Frey paused for a moment and then said, "Your honor, I don't know how to proceed."
Coss said to proceed in a different direction. Frey said that he felt the questioning was relevant.
"You're not going to argue with me," Coss said. "I told you three times, and this is the last time. If you bring it up again, I'll hold you in contempt."
Frey asked Frattare how he could be certain, if he didn't know how the software worked, that it was not looking at files that were not in the shared folder. Frattare said he had never heard of that happening before. Frey then asked about the database where Frattare initially encountered the IP address. Frattare said that there is a database that keeps track of IP addresses that law enforcement agencies in other cities and states identify as having downloaded illegal images. While he did not know which law enforcement agency initially identified the address, he could find that out before trial. He was also asked how many times they executed a search warrant based on the software's findings and did not actually find any illegal images. Frattare said he couldn't say specifically, but probably less than 10.
He then asked Frattare how he would know if the system was working correctly. Frattare said that he didn't know.
The state then called Brandon Hoyt, a computer forensic specialist at the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. He testified regarding the physical search of Jeter's house and the computers confiscated during the search. Hoyt said he did a field analysis of the computer and testified that he found pornographic images of children on a drive on the computer in the shared folder. He also found a file sharing program called 360 Share Pro that had been downloaded.
Det. Sergeant Denny Kirk from the Highland County Sheriff's Office also testified on the execution of the search warrant.
After hearing arguments on the case, Coss ruled in favor of the state, saying that there was no expectation of privacy because the images were in the shared folder. He also stated that the reason the investigators knew the software was working was "by applying common sense" because "if they were able to view the files, the software was working correctly."
Following the hearing, Frey proffered to the court's record his objections as to why the line of questioning regarding the software's development and ownership was relevant.
Jeter is scheduled for a final pretrial Aug. 3, and a three-day jury trial Aug. 22 in Highland County Common Please Court.