Albrecht v. State

• Decision Date: 16 December 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-945
• Citation: 159 N.E.3d 1004
• Parties: Nathan C. ALBRECHT, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

159 N.E.3d 1004

Nathan C. ALBRECHT, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-945

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED December 16, 2020

Attorney for Appellant: Bernadette A. Kovacs, Rahman Law Office, Ferdinand, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Evan Matthew Comer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] In this interlocutory appeal, Nathan Albrecht ("Albrecht") appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which led to the State filing ten counts of possession of child pornography against Albrecht. This case involves five search warrants obtained by police during an investigation into allegations of child molesting by Albrecht. The second search warrant authorized the seizure and forensic search of a hard drive, which led to the discovery that the hard drive contained child pornography.

[2] On appeal, Albrecht challenges the second search warrant, alleging that it lacked probable cause and did not meet the particularity requirement under the Fourth Amendment, and he challenges the third, fourth, and fifth warrants under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Concluding that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed for the second search warrant and that the second search warrant was particularized in terms of the items to be seized and in terms of the scope of the search to be performed, we affirm the trial court's denial of Albrecht's motion to suppress.

[3] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Albrecht's motion to suppress.

Facts

[4] In August 2019, twelve-year-old R.R. ("R.R.") told authorities that twenty-seven-year-old Albrecht, who worked with R.R. as part of Mentors for Youth, had inappropriately touched R.R. during the prior six to nine months. On August 23, 2019, R.R. told a forensic interviewer that Albrecht had "placed his mouth on R.R.'s penis on multiple occasions while [R.R.] was at ... Albrecht's apartment in Ferdinand." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 5). R.R. also revealed that Albrecht's inappropriate actions had included Albrecht's penis. Specifically, R.R. explained that, "on more than one occasion[,]" Albrecht had taken a "clear" item and "slid[ ] it over [Albrecht's] penis" and that occasionally R.R. had used his hand to put the clear item on Albrecht's penis. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 5). Additionally, R.R., while making an up-and-down motion with his hand, explained that "white stuff would come out of [Albrecht's] penis, and the clear plastic thing would catch it." (Tr. Vol. 2 at 5). R.R. also disclosed that Albrecht had gotten these clear items from his bathroom. Deputy John Anderson ("Deputy Anderson") and Officer Eric Hopkins ("Officer Hopkins") spoke to Albrecht about the allegations, and Albrecht invoked his right to an attorney.

[5] Based on R.R.'s allegations, the police sought a search warrant during a telephonic hearing on August 23, 2019 around 1:00 p.m. Investigator Richard Chambers ("Investigator Chambers"), who had attended R.R.'s forensic interview, informed the trial court of allegations of child molesting and the facts as set forth above. Investigator Chambers sought a search warrant to obtain "[a] condom or packages of condoms or similar instrumentality believed to be located in the bathroom of the residence[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 7). He also sought "to take photographs or video of the residence that was described by the State's witness" to compare it to R.R.'s description. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 7). Investigator Chambers read the text of the search warrant out loud over the phone to the trial court. At 1:09 p.m., the trial court found that there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant and authorized Investigator Chambers to sign the warrant on the court's behalf. The warrant was issued under cause number 19C01-1908-MC-856 ("Search Warrant 856") and provided as follows:

WHEREAS, there has been testimony given to me an affidavit that establishes probable cause,

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED in the name of the State of Indiana, with the necessary and proper assistance, to search an upstairs unit of a multi-family residence at 1705 Main Street, Ferdinand, Indiana, located on the west side of the street with three (3) Bedford stone pillars on the front porch and the numbers 1705 on it and the home has white vinyl siding with [a] black roof and the upstairs apartment on the 2nd floor northside of the building with [a] tan door which is half glass with [a] white blind in the door and a red painted wooden stairwell leading up to the apartment. To the right of the entrance door of the upstairs unit, a TV antenna is located with a security light above the door.

A condom or packages of condoms or similar instrumentality believed to be located in the bathroom of the residence as well as to take photographs or video of the residence that was described by the State's witness.

You are ordered to examine such property, or any part thereof, found on such search.

(App Vol. 2 at 17).

[6] Immediately thereafter, police officers, including Deputy Anderson, served Search Warrant 856 at Albrecht's residence. One of the officers found condoms in Albrecht's bathroom. While searching for the condoms, the officer also found a two-terabyte external hard drive, which was in a Ziploc bag and "hidden behind" a "decorative" "wooden border" above the vanity. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). The hard drive was "within arm[']s length" of the condoms. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). When the police arrested Albrecht, he had a cell phone in his pocket.

[7] That same day, the police sought a second search warrant during another telephonic hearing. Deputy Anderson sought the search warrant to seize and search the hard drive found in Albrecht's bathroom and the cell phone in Albrecht's possession upon his arrest. The trial court took judicial notice of the hearing for Search Warrant 856 that had occurred two hours previously.

[8] During this second hearing, Deputy Anderson described where the officers had found the hard drive and gave the specific description of the hard drive, including brand, model number, pin number and serial number. Deputy Anderson confirmed that he sought to search the hard drive for "any potential evidence ... that could be located related directly to this crime[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 13). When discussing the request to search Albrecht's phone, Deputy Anderson gave the phone number of Albrecht's cell phone and stated that R.R.'s mother had found some texts from Albrecht and that they were from that same phone number. Deputy Anderson confirmed that he sought to search the phone because "the text message relate[d] directly to the date on which the alleged crimes would've occurred[.]" (Tr. Vol. 2 at 12). Deputy Anderson also stated that Officer Hopkins had contacted Albrecht earlier that day at that same phone number.

[9] Deputy Anderson then began to read the text of the search warrant application out loud over the phone to the trial court. The phone connection cut out as Deputy Anderson was reading the warrant, so the prosecutor, who had a copy of the search warrant, finished reading it into the court record. At 3:27 p.m., the trial court found that there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant and authorized Deputy Anderson to sign the warrant on the court's behalf. The warrant was issued under cause number 19C01-1908-MC-857 ("Search Warrant 857").

WHEREAS, there has been testimony given to me an affidavit that establishes probable cause,

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED in the name of the State of Indiana, with the necessary and proper assistance, to search an upstairs unit of a multi-family residence at 1705 Main Street, Ferdinand, Indiana, located on the west side of the street with the following items which are may [sic] contain evidence of the crime of child molesting pursuant to [Search Warrant 856] issued under Cause No. 19C01-1908-MC-00856.

An external hard drive, NEMKO-US, Seagate Model No. SRD00F1, PN Number 1K9AP-6-501, Serial NA7K1WKJ, TTB, backup plus portable drive located in a clear plastic Ziploc bag with a blue seal found in the bathroom, hidden above the vanity shelf behind a ledge, located during the search for condoms and found within close proximity to the condoms.

Also, to seize and search a black ZTE TracFone located in possession of defendant Nathan Albrecht at the time of his arrest with a phone number of (317) [XXX-XXXX].

This request for a warrant involves the potential seizure and review of digital media. The analysis of computer and/or digital media is an exacting scientific procedure which is designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and to recover digital information, to include hidden, erased, compressed, password-protected or encrypted files. The analysis of evidence from computer and digital systems commonly require the seizure of all computer-related items to be processed by a qualified computer expert in a laboratory or other controlled environment. The high volume of the contents and the potential intentional concealment of criminal activity through random ordering and deceptive file names may require the examination of all stored data. This process may take weeks to months depending on the volume of the data involved and the caseload of the computer expert.

Recognizing that specialized and highly technical equipment and software will be needed to conduct the analysis of the seized digital media, the media will be transferred to the Indiana State Police Cyber Crime Unit or other qualified laboratory with a request that a forensic examination be conducted in this matter. Additionally, under limited situations, assistance may be required by the receiving laboratory from other qualified laboratories.

USE OF UNSWORN PERSONNEL: Forensic analysis of any seized computer equipment pursuant to this search warrant may be conducted by employees of law enforcement agencies

...