State v. Sawyer, SC 20132
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | McDONALD, J. |
| Citation | 335 Conn. 29,225 A.3d 668 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Thomas William SAWYER |
| Docket Number | SC 20132 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 2020 |
335 Conn. 29
225 A.3d 668
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Thomas William SAWYER
SC 20132
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Officially released March 24, 2020
Argued October 16, 2020
Richard Emanuel, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Margaret E. Kelley, state's attorney, and Amy L. Bepko, executive assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
Opinion
McDONALD, J.
The defendant, Thomas William Sawyer, was convicted on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; see
General Statutes § 54-94a ; of possession of child pornography in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196e. The defendant entered his plea following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress hundreds of photographs and a smaller number of videos of suspected child pornography that the police recovered from computer equipment and related media storage seized from the defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant appealed from his conviction to the Appellate Court, and the case was transferred to this court. On appeal, the defendant argues that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the issuing judge could not have reasonably inferred from descriptions in the search warrant affidavit of two photographs of nude children that the photographs were lascivious. This case requires us to decide whether the totality of the circumstances described in the affidavit and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support a finding of probable cause to believe that a search of the defendant's residence would uncover evidence of possession of child pornography. Because we conclude that the affidavit did support this finding, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The affidavit set forth the following facts. In July, 2015, the defendant was a brother of The Brothers of Holy Cross, living with two other brothers in an apartment they rented from Saint John Vianney Church in West Haven. Each of the three men had his own bedroom in a four bedroom suite, and they shared a common living room and kitchen. When the defendant moved to the apartment approximately ten months prior, he brought with him two computers, one being community property of The Brothers of Holy Cross and the other owned by Holy Cross High School in Waterbury, where the defendant served as an information technology supervisor. Both computers were set up in the fourth bedroom, which was otherwise used for guests and storage. The defendant was the only one of the men who used the computers.
One of the defendant's roommates, Lawrence Lussier, called West Haven police after he observed the defendant looking at what Lussier described as "child pornography" on a computer in the fourth bedroom. A few days later, at the request of West Haven detectives, Lussier went to police headquarters to give a recorded statement about the incident. He reported that he saw the defendant sitting at one of his computers with headphones on, which was not unusual. On the computer screen, however, Lussier saw "a picture of a naked boy, standing with his genitals exposed, [and] the boy appeared to be approximately [eight to nine] years old with no visible pubic hair," followed by "a picture of a naked girl, with very small breasts and her hand covering her genital area." The two photographs "appeared to be in a slide projection program ... because the pictures went from the left side to the right side [of the screen] and were only visible for several seconds." He also saw what appeared to be "other thumbnail pictures on the left side of the screen, but they were too small to identify." Lussier was confident, given his life experience as a seventy-five year old man and former
secondary education schoolteacher, that each of the two photographs depicted young children.
The next day, Detectives Domenic Vinci and William Conlan applied for a warrant to seize the defendant's computer equipment and storage devices and to search them for evidence of possession of child pornography. In addition to the previously described facts, the detectives also noted in the affidavit that they had about forty years of combined experience and that
they were assigned to the investigative services division of the West Haven Police Department, in which capacity they had investigated "numerous incidents of the nature set forth in [the] [a]ffidavit." They also represented, based on their knowledge, training, and experience, that computer files or their remnants may be discovered and recovered years after they are downloaded, deleted, or viewed on the Internet. The issuing judge, Markle, J. , determined that there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. By signing the warrant, the judge authorized the police to search the defendant's residence and to seize and search computers and related storage devices and equipment for evidence of possession of child pornography.
The record provides the following additional, undisputed facts. The police executed the search warrant the next day and seized electronics, videotapes, DVDs, and CDs. At the detectives' request, the defendant voluntarily came to the police station for an interview, in which he admitted that he "enjoyed looking at [photographs] and videos of prepubescent young boys." A subsequent analysis of the seized items by the state Computer Crimes and Electronic Evidence Laboratory revealed more than 400 images and a smaller number of videos of suspected child pornography. Detectives then obtained and executed a warrant to arrest the defendant for possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-196d.
The state initially charged the defendant with possession of child pornography in the first degree, and the defendant pleaded not guilty. The defendant moved to suppress the seized evidence in part on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient to support probable cause because the two photographs Lussier saw did not depict "sexually explicit conduct," which is required to constitute child pornography; General Statutes § 53a-193 (13) ; and which, as relevant to the present case, is defined as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area ...." General Statutes § 53a-193 (14) (E).1
At the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress, defense counsel argued that probable cause was lacking because the affidavit described only a brief observation of "several seconds," by a person with no articulated experience distinguishing between child pornography and a photograph of a nude child, of two photographs that the state conceded were not lascivious.2 The court denied the defendant's motion to suppress, reasoning that "[w]hether the [photographs] actually depicted ‘sexually explicit conduct’ was not a relevant area of inquiry for the issuing court. The only relevant issue ... was whether the affidavit presented sufficient objective indicia of reliability to justify a finding of probable cause that the [photographs] depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct." The court concluded that "[t]he issuing court was permitted to infer
from Lussier's statements that he
in fact observed [photographs] of naked children on a computer that was in the defendant's possession, and that it was more probable than not3 that evidence of ... possession of child pornography ... could be found pursuant to a search of the defendant's items." (Footnote added.)
Following the suppression hearing, the state amended its information, charging the defendant with possession of child pornography in the second degree, in violation of § 53a-196e. The same day, the defendant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the plea agreement and sentenced the defendant to ten years imprisonment, execution suspended after three years,4 and ten years of probation. The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court, and the appeal was transferred to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-2.
On appeal, the defendant advances two claims. First, the defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the affidavit provided probable cause to search his residence for evidence of possession of child pornography. Second, he argues that this court should adopt a "more probable than not" standard of probable cause under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cody M., SC 20213
...harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29, 49-50, 225 A.3d 668 (2020). For purposes of this Golding analysis, we assume that the trial court's instructional definition of harassing was i......
-
State v. Sayles, AC 43500
...economic and sociological norms [otherwise described as public policies]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sawyer , 335 Conn. 29, 50, 225 A.3d 668 (2020) ; State v. Taupier , 330 Conn. 149, 175, 193 A.3d 1 (2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1188, 203 L. Ed. 2d 202 ......
-
State v. Griffin, SC 20439
...economic and sociological norms [otherwise described as public policies].'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29, 50, 225 A.3d 668 (2020). We conclude that a review of the Geisler factors does not support the defendant's claim that we should adopt a prophylactic......
-
State v. Correa, SC 20246
...may disagree as to whether a particular [set of facts] establishes probable cause''; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29, 38, 225 A.3d 668 (2020); and because the state ‘‘cannot prevail under the inevitable discovery doctrine merely by establishing that it is mo......
-
State v. Cody M., SC 20213
...harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29, 49-50, 225 A.3d 668 (2020). For purposes of this Golding analysis, we assume that the trial court's instructional definition of harassing was i......
-
State v. Sayles, AC 43500
...economic and sociological norms [otherwise described as public policies]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sawyer , 335 Conn. 29, 50, 225 A.3d 668 (2020) ; State v. Taupier , 330 Conn. 149, 175, 193 A.3d 1 (2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1188, 203 L. Ed. 2d 202 ......
-
State v. Griffin, SC 20439
...economic and sociological norms [otherwise described as public policies].'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29, 50, 225 A.3d 668 (2020). We conclude that a review of the Geisler factors does not support the defendant's claim that we should adopt a prophylactic......
-
State v. Correa, SC 20246
...may disagree as to whether a particular [set of facts] establishes probable cause''; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Sawyer, 335 Conn. 29, 38, 225 A.3d 668 (2020); and because the state ‘‘cannot prevail under the inevitable discovery doctrine merely by establishing that it is mo......