State v. Larson
| Decision Date | 09 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 20-0603 |
| Citation | 2022 MT 223 |
| Parties | STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TRENTON MATTHEW LARSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Alexander H Pyle, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Roy Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Leo J Gallagher, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Helena, Montana
Melissa Broch, Harris Law Office PLLC, Helena, Montana
¶1 Trent Matthew Larson (Larson) was charged with possessing child pornography in violation of § 45-5-625(1)(e), MCA. He entered into a plea agreement in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, that reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
¶2 We affirm and restate the issue as follows:
Did the District Court err when it failed to suppress evidence confiscated by a manager of a group home, pursuant to the group home's rules, who subsequently turned the evidence over to police?
¶3 This case arises out of events occurring at an adult foster care group home in East Helena where Larson lived. Larson has Asperger's syndrome. His original placement in the group home was arranged through his parole and probation officer pursuant to a sentence for burglary. He lived at the group home for five years until he completed his probationary term and then continued to live in the group home for another two years until his electronic devices were confiscated and he was charged with the instant offense.
¶4 Connie Griffin Jacquez (Jacquez) was the owner and manager of the private group home when Larson lived there. She is neither a law enforcement officer nor a state employee. When Larson entered the group home, he was advised of the group home's rules. The rules were extensive and covered many aspects of a resident's life, such as maintenance of regular hygiene; no use of alcohol or drugs; and requirements that a resident follow their treatment plan, abide by a 10 p.m. curfew, complete assigned chores, and participate in household recreational activities. The rules specifically prohibited certain activities as well. A resident could not possess pornographic material and the use of an electronic device for such a purpose would subject the device to confiscation. The rules relevant to these proceedings provided:
The rules also provided for a "30-day eviction notice" or, in the case where a resident continues to violate the rules after frequent warnings, "immediate eviction." Jacquez allowed, though not stated in the rules, a resident to have confiscated property back upon leaving the group home permanently. Larson signed the rules in 2013, thus affirming that he understood he was not allowed to view or possess pornography and that his electronics would be confiscated if he did not comply. Every year thereafter, Larson read and signed the rules indicating that he understood and agreed to them.
¶5 Unfortunately, Larson struggled to follow the rules of the group home. For instance, he projected adult pornography in a common residential area, which led to complaints from other residents. He was known to steal children's and women's undergarments. Furthermore, he begun "propositioning" Jacquez's grandchildren and other children in the neighborhood. To prevent Larson from streaming pornography and engaging in inappropriate behavior, Jacquez used internet screening technology to block pornography from coming into the residence over the internet. Larson still found ways to avoid the blocking technology and continued to view pornography on his phone and computer. As a result, Jacquez confiscated his electronic devices.
¶6 At some point, Larson enrolled in school so Jacquez decided to give him another chance with computers. Jacquez allowed him to access his computer for the purpose of doing schoolwork only. However, Jacquez discovered that Larson was still using the computer to view pornography. Further attempts by Jacquez to monitor Larson's electronics failed and Larson subsequently admitted to Jacquez that "he was having thoughts of molesting children." Consequently, Jacquez confiscated Larson's computer and the rest of his electronic devices and directed him to seek treatment in a sexual offender treatment program. He agreed to attend treatment, and Jacquez accompanied him.
¶7 By now, Jacquez had confiscated numerous electronic devices from Larson-a computer, three or more phones, external hard drives, and video streaming devices. Notwithstanding, Larson continued to purchase new devices and tried to conceal them from Jacquez. Jacquez continued to confiscate them and place them in a safe to prevent Larson from accessing them.
¶8 Jacquez contacted the police on several occasions advising that she had confiscated pornography from a resident. On the first occasion, police said they would respond but never did. Two or three weeks later, a resident informed her that Larson had been hiding a phone in a plastic bag in the back of the toilet. She confronted Larson about the phone and saw it contained child pornography when he handed it over to her. Once Jacquez confiscated the phone, she called the police again, but the police did not answer. Jacquez then asked Larson to leave the group home permanently. Larson informed her that he was already planning to move out and had contacted law enforcement for a civil standby so he could get his electronics back.
¶9 When Larson contacted the police, Deputy Jordan Criske-Hall asked Larson why he "didn't just wait until the 30 days was up," in which case, Jacquez would return his electronics. Larson replied that "he would probably be arrested" if he answered Deputy Criske-Hall's question. The deputy continued to inquire, and Larson eventually disclosed that he had child pornography on his devices. Deputy Criske-Hall responded to the group home and informed Jacquez about this conversation. Jacquez told Deputy Criske-Hall that she had already confiscated some of Larson's electronics after she observed child pornography on his computer and phone. Deputy Criske-Hall then asked Jacquez "to gather up all of the electronics that [she] could find of his." Jacquez testified that she gave Deputy Criske-Hall Larson's electronics that she had already confiscated, along with two additional thumb drives she seized after Deputy Criske-Hall's request. Jacquez testified at the suppression hearing that the only items she believed she had "not confiscated from him was like the thumb-some thumb drives[.]"[2] Deputy Criske-Hall did not have a warrant when Jacquez turned over Larson's electronics.
¶10 After Deputy Criske-Hall confiscated and secured the electronic devices, a detective from the Criminal Investigation Division applied for a search warrant. The search warrant was granted on December 11, 2019. The search of the devices revealed "80 or more" videos and pictures of child pornography involving infants, newborns, and preteen sex with adult men. Moreover, a search of Larson's computer yielded anime[3] pictures of sex with toddlers and young females, along with search terms such as "Toddler girls open vagina." Larson admitted to detectives that he had used the "Dark Web" to search and look at child pornography, describing the websites he had visited.
¶11 The State charged Larson with possession of child pornography in violation of § 45-5-625(1)(e), MCA. Larson moved to suppress any evidence derived from the electronic devices, arguing that Jacquez became a state actor when she turned over his electronic devices to police. Larson also maintained that Jacquez, as a third-party, lacked authority to consent to the State seizing his devices without a warrant. The District Court held a hearing and Jacquez testified, but Deputy Criske-Hall did not. The District Court denied Larson's motion, finding that Jacquez "was not acting at the instigation of law enforcement" and that "[s]he was acting to enforce the group home rules to which Larson had consented." The District Court concluded that Larson had "assumed the risk" that Jacquez would see the child pornography on his electronics, confiscate the devices, and turn the electronics over to law enforcement.
¶12 Larson entered into a plea agreement with the State, where the State agreed to recommend a ten-year sentence to the Montana State Prison with all time suspended. The District Court adopted the psychosexual evaluator's recommendation and designated Larson a Tier 2 sexual offender. Larson reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
¶13 For the denial of a motion to suppress, this Court reviews findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law for correctness. State v. Pham, 2021 MT 270, ¶ 11 406 Mont. 109, 497 P.3d 217. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence the court misapprehends the...
To continue reading
Request your trial