State v. Shields, 18731.

• Decision Date: 28 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 18731.,18731.
• Citation: 308 Conn. 678,69 A.3d 293
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Robert SHIELDS III.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

308 Conn. 678
69 A.3d 293

STATE of Connecticut
v.
Robert SHIELDS III.

No. 18731.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 15, 2012.
Decided May 28, 2013.

[69 A.3d 294]

Richard Emanuel, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Robert M. Casale, Branford, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Terence D. Mariani, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, HARPER and SHELDON, Js. ^*

PALMER, J.

[308 Conn. 681]The defendant, Robert Shields III, was convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere; see General Statutes § 54–94a; ¹ of possession of child pornography

[69 A.3d 295]

in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a–196d.² The defendant entered his plea following the trial court's denial of his motions to suppress numerous photographic and video recorded images depicting child pornography that the police discovered in computer equipment that had been seized from his Southbury residence pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court pursuant to § 54–94a, and that court affirmed the trial court's judgment upon concluding that the trial court properly had determined that the affidavit in support of the search warrant application contained sufficient facts to establish probable cause to believe that [308 Conn. 682]child pornography would be found at the defendant's residence. State v. Shields, 124 Conn.App. 584, 596, 601, 5 A.3d 984 (2010). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that probable cause existed to support the issuance of the warrant. State v. Shields, 299 Conn. 927, 12 A.3d 571 (2011). We answer that question in the affirmative and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. “On November 15, 2005, as the result of a criminal investigation that began in Pennsylvania, Officer Christopher Grillo of the Southbury police department and Trooper Gerard Johansen of the Connecticut state police prepared a search warrant application and affidavit for the search of the defendant's residence at 141 Rocky Mountain Road in [the town of] Southbury.

“The affidavit [contained the following information].... [On] November 4, 2005, Grillo received a telephone call from Brian Sprinkle, a detective with the Ferguson Township police department, located in State College, Pennsylvania. Sprinkle informed Grillo that through his investigation of Brian Gayan, a Pennsylvania resident accused of having unlawful contact with [children] through the Internet, he learned of an online conversation between Gayan and [a person initially identified as] Jerome Cariaso, also of 141 Rocky Mountain Road [in Southbury]. During the conversation, Cariaso made comments regarding sexual contact between him and his eight year old son.³ Immediately after the

[69 A.3d 296]

308 Conn. 683]call, Grillo confirmed that Cariaso resided at the address provided by Sprinkle.

“On November 10, 2005, Grillo received a letter from Sprinkle that revealed that Trooper Glenn Brad of the Pennsylvania state police [had] executed search warrants at Gayan's place of residence and place of employment. A forensic search of [Gayan's work computer turned up approximately 200 images containing child pornography and] revealed that Gayan, using the screen name [c]entralpamaster, had contact with seventy-five screen names belonging either to [children] or [to] suspects who had spoken with him about abusing their own children or children they knew. Sprinkle obtained a court order, which [directed] Yahoo, Inc. [Yahoo], to provide log-in Internal [P]rotocol (IP) addresses for the screen name [b]i06488. [Yahoo] revealed that there was a recent log of IP addresses listed under that screen name. It was [determined] that the IP addresses were owned by Charter Communications, and, on November 4, 2005, Charter Communications indicated that Cariaso, of 141 Rocky Mountain Road, Southbury, was the subscriber for the IP address of 24.151.2.100, the IP address in question.

“Additionally, Sprinkle provided Grillo with a [partial] transcript of a [Yahoo instant messaging] conversation between [c]entralpamaster and [b]i06488, in which [b]i06488 asked [c]entralpamaster for pornographic photographs of [c]entralpamaster's son.⁴ The person using the [b]i06488 screen name [who subsequently was identified as the defendant] informed [c]entralpamaster that [he] could not swap photographs because he did [308 Conn. 684]not currently have pornographic photographs of his son on his computer. ⁵

[69 A.3d 297

“On November 14, 2005, Grillo obtained land records from the Southbury assessor's office indicating that the property located at 141 Rocky Mountain Road was owned by Cariaso, the defendant and Rosalie Shields. ⁶[308 Conn. 685][On the basis of] the foregoing investigation, Grillo and Johansen submitted a search warrant application seeking to search the subject residence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shields, supra, 124 Conn.App. at 586–88, 5 A.3d 984.

In addition to the foregoing facts, including the excerpt from the instant messaging conversation between the defendant and centralpamaster, the affidavit accompanying the warrant application also provided that Johansen had been a member of the state police force for five years, was assigned to the computer crimes and electronic evidence unit (evidence unit) and had worked exclusively in the field of computer related criminal activity. The evidence unit is affiliated with the Internet crimes against children task force, a task force devoted to the apprehension of individuals committing offenses against children that often involve the use of computer technology. The affidavit also provided that, through training and experience, Johansen knew that individuals who are engaged in the sexual exploitation of children often will take pornographic photographs of children and trade such photographs with other adults via the Internet. Johansen further stated, on the basis of his training and experience, that persons involved in sending or receiving images of child pornography tend to retain those images on their computers for extended periods of time, and that even data that the user purports to delete may remain in the computer and, therefore, remain subject to retrieval upon a thorough forensic examination of the computer. Finally, the “affidavit alleged that there was probable cause to believe that Cariaso had violated the following statutes: General Statutes § 53–21, risk of injury to a child; [General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) ] § 53a–196d, possession of child pornography in the first degree; and General Statutes [§ ] 53a–49 and [General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § ] 53a–196d, attempt to possess child pornography in the [308 Conn. 686]first degree. The court, Brown, J., issued the warrant on the same day, authorizing a search of the residence located at 141 Rocky Mountain Road, the seizure and subsequent investigative review of any computer systems found for evidence of violations of § 53–21 [and General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) ] § 53a–196d ... and the transport of the computer systems to the ... evidence unit....

“On November 16, 2005, the police executed the warrant. Upon entering the residence, the police found the defendant, Rosalie Shields and Cariaso. The police seized numerous computer systems from the residence. The evidence unit completed a forensic examination of the defendant's [computer equipment] and found numerous [photographic images] and video [files] depicting child pornography. The forensic examination also revealed extensive evidence that the [computer equipment was] used by the defendant and not

[69 A.3d 298]

Cariaso. ⁷ The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography in the first degree in violation of [General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) ] § 53a–196d and importing child pornography in violation of [General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) ] § 53a–196c.

“On August 16, 2006, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence that had been seized, arguing, inter alia, that the search was unlawful [under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution ⁸ and article[308 Conn. 687]first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution] ⁹ because the warrant failed to establish probable cause to believe that child pornography was located within the subject residence. The defendant further argued that the affidavit [in support of] the warrant failed to establish a connection between the screen name [b]i06488, the IP address and the subject premises. On June 8, 2007, the court, Cremins, J., denied the defendant's motion and concluded that the affidavit supported a reasonable inference that [b]i06488 requested ... pornographic images and that this inference provided the issuing [judge] with a substantial basis from which to conclude that evidence of child pornography would be found in the residence.” ¹⁰ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shields, supra, 124 Conn.App. at 588–89, 5 A.3d 984.

“[O]n September 17, 2008, [the defendant] entered a written, conditional plea of nolo contendere to possession of child pornography in the first degree. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty years, execution suspended[308 Conn. 688]after five years, and ten years probation, with conditions including sex offender evaluation and treatment, and registration as a

[69 A.3d 299]

sex offender.” ¹¹Id., at 590, 5 A.3d 984.

The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of conviction, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress was improper because the warrant authorizing the search of his residence for...