State v. Littrell
| Decision Date | 19 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 122,982,122,982 |
| Citation | 498 P.3d 1247 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Dallas S. LITTRELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Ryan J. Eddinger, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Daniel G. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before Schroeder, P.J., Warner and Isherwood, JJ.
An anonymous male (Anonymous) came into possession of a cell phone containing a video of Dallas S. Littrell involved in sexual acts with a female child who Anonymous believed was Littrell's relative. Following his bench trial, Littrell was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and one count of aggravated endangering a child. Littrell now appeals, claiming the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence contained on the cell phone Anonymous brought to the police department and additional evidence found as a result of a search warrant later issued to search Littrell's home based in part on evidence reflected in the cell phone video. Upon careful review of the record, we find no error. We affirm.
In January 2017, Anonymous came into the Kansas City, Kansas, police headquarters and requested to speak with a police officer about evidence of possible child pornography. Detective Cotarino Mendez met with Anonymous.
Anonymous suggested he had a video of an individual he knew as Littrell performing sexual acts with a female child. Mendez asked Anonymous to show him the video, which depicted a white male with several tattoos on his body and an adolescent female child. Anonymous advised he recognized the white male as Littrell because of his tattoos and suggested the adolescent female was Littrell's relative, K.L. Anonymous also said Littrell lived on Edith Street.
After meeting with Anonymous, Mendez researched Littrell and confirmed he lived on Edith Street. Mendez also searched local schools to determine whether a child named K.L. went to grade school in the general area. Mendez found K.L.'s school and discovered K.L.'s emergency contact was Littrell. Based on the information he had, Mendez requested a search warrant for Littrell's residence to look for evidence, including but not limited to any electronic devices, sex toys, and children's pajamas.
Mendez, armed with the search warrant, went to Littrell's residence along with other Kansas City, Kansas, police officers. Upon knocking, a male opened the door and called for Littrell. Littrell came up from the basement wearing only a towel around his waist, exposing his tattoos, and advised the officers K.L. was in the basement as she stayed home sick from school that day. Littrell's tattoos matched the man's tattoos from the video. Mendez also noted Littrell's tattoos were in the jail's database, allowing him to identify the male in the video as Littrell.
During a search of the residence, officers found a loaded handgun under the pillow where K.L. was lying down. Officers found a picture of K.L. wearing a red pajama top with embroidery around the wrist and a ring on her finger. The officers took multiple electronic devices from the house and placed K.L. in police protective custody.
The State initially charged Littrell with sexual exploitation of a child, an off-grid person felony, and aggravated endangering a child, a severity level 9 person felony.
Shortly after the police conducted their search, Daniel Mott, who claimed to be Littrell's father, was cleaning out Littrell's bedroom when he found a tablet, a Kodak camera, and other electronic devices. Mott told Mendez the tablet and the Kodak camera had videos of Littrell doing sexually explicit things with a child. Mott said the child in the video was K.L., who was about seven years old. Mott recognized K.L.'s voice in the video and recognized Littrell's tattoos. Mendez took custody of the items and obtained a search warrant for permission to open those items.
The tablet and Kodak camera were subsequently searched at the Heart of America Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory (HARCFL), in Cass County, Missouri. During a search of the tablet, a video was found of a young female masturbating the suspect, Littrell, under a camouflage blanket. Mendez recalled seeing a similar camouflage blanket during his initial search of Littrell's residence. The young female was wearing a red shirt with embroidery on the wrist and a gold ring on her right hand with a green ink mark on the outside of her hand. Littrell was identifiable by his stomach and chest tattoos. Cartoons were playing in the background, and the child was crying in the video. The HARCFL laboratory determined the video was created in January 2017 in Wyandotte County.
Another video depicted an unidentified child (the child's face was blocked) in cartoon pajamas and a male with tattoos on his hands and knuckles performing a sex act. The tattoos on the hands and knuckles in the video matched tattoos on Littrell's hands. The videos were found in hidden files and renamed and reclassified so they were not readily recognizable. Mendez testified the same videos were located on multiple devices.
The State filed a first amended complaint and later filed a second amended complaint, ultimately charging Littrell with two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, each an off-grid person felony; three counts of sexual exploitation of a child, a severity level 5 person felony; and aggravated endangering a child, a severity level 9 person felony. Littrell pled not guilty.
Littrell moved to suppress the evidence brought forth by Anonymous which supported a search warrant being granted to search his house. Littrell argued:
The State responded, arguing Littrell's motion to suppress should be denied because private searches are not protected under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The State claimed that by the time Mendez viewed the videos voluntarily provided to the police by Anonymous and the other electronic items delivered by Mott, Littrell's "privacy interests in the images were already frustrated." The State alternatively argued even if Mendez' search exceeded the scope of the private search, the evidence seized under the search warrants should not be suppressed under the good faith exception. The district court denied Littrell's motion.
Littrell filed multiple motion to suppress any and all evidence obtained from the other electronic items seized by the officers during the first search of Littrell's house or those electronic items brought in by Mott. The district court denied his motions to suppress and his motion for reconsideration.
At Littrell's bench trial, the district court took the matter under advisement to review the evidence. Before announcing a verdict, the district court noted the State changed the dates on its second amended complaint, and the State agreed it would file a third amended complaint simply to reflect the new dates. Littrell was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and one count of aggravated endangering a child.
Littrell filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a motion for judgment of acquittal, again asking that the evidence obtained from the cell phone and search warrants be suppressed. Littrell also filed a motion for a downward departure based on his lack of criminal history. The district court denied the motions. Littrell was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a mandatory minimum sentence of not less than 25 years followed by lifetime parole for each conviction of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and 6 months' imprisonment for the conviction of aggravated endangering a child. The district court ordered all sentences to run consecutive.
Littrell argues Mendez unlawfully participated in a warrantless government search and seizure of the cell phone brought to the police by an anonymous individual. Littrell contends Mendez should have first inquired as to how the source obtained the cell phone.
The standard of review of a district court's decision on a motion to suppress has two components. The appellate court reviews the district court's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. The ultimate legal conclusion, however, is reviewed using a de novo standard. In reviewing the factual findings, the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. State v. Hanke , 307 Kan. 823, 827, 415 P.3d 966 (2018).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in relevant part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Our Supreme Court has interpreted section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights "as providing protections identical to the Fourth Amendment." State v. Daino , 312 Kan. 390, 396, 475 P.3d 354 (2020). A warrant is generally required to search a cell phone, so far as it is seized incident to arrest, though "other case-specific exceptions may still justify a warrantless search of a particular phone." Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373, 401-02, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014).
Littrell argues the district court should have suppressed all evidence seized from the cell phone and from the subsequent search of Littrell's home as fruit of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial