CSAM & Predators - "Knock and Talk" for contraband images - Suspect created exigent circumstances - Utah - 2011

From the Utah Supreme Court 2011 -- a ruling favorable to law enforcement regarding "knock and talks" and a seizure related to exigent circumstances created when suspect said he was thinking of destroying his computer. - State v. Maxwell 2011 UT 81

...an exigent circumstance arose out of Maxwell's open acknowledgement that he was thinking of destroying his computer. Second, the exigency was not improperly created by the police, as there was no threat to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the decision to seize Maxwell's computer was a reasonable method of preventing the destruction of evidence.

JUSTICE LEE, opinion of the Court.

¶1 This case arises from an investigation by the Utah Attorney General's Task Force on Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC). When ICAC agents discovered that child pornography had been downloaded through an IP address belonging to David Maxwell, they went to his home to talk to him about the evidence they had uncovered and about his use of a computer for viewing pornography. The agents eventually asked Maxwell if he would consent to a seizure and search of his computer. Maxwell refused. He also openly adverted to the possibility of destroying his computer. ICAC agents then seized the computer and later secured a warrant to search it. The ensuing search uncovered numerous video and still images of child pornography, and Maxwell was charged with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.

¶2 The district court granted Maxwell's motion to suppress the files found on his computer, concluding that there was no exigent circumstance sustaining a warrantless seizure of Maxwell's computer, that any such exigency was improperly created by ICAC agents, and that seizure of the computer was unreasonable in any event because the agents could have ensured the integrity of the computer by less intrusive means. The State appealed. We accepted certification of the case from the court of appeals in light of the important questions it presents regarding the exigent circumstances standard for warrantless seizures.

¶3 We reverse. First, an exigent circumstance arose out of Maxwell's open acknowledgement that he was thinking of destroying his computer. Second, the exigency was not improperly created by the police, as there was no threat to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the decision to seize Maxwell's computer was a reasonable method of preventing the destruction of evidence.

Link to the Court's decision:   http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20UTCO%2020111220D21.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

The Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/164010175632/doc/10150438111790633/