Argued
September 21, 2018
Procedural
History
Substitute
information charging the defendant with the crime of
possession of child pornography in the second degree, brought
to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven
at Meriden, geographical area number seven, where the court,
Hon. John F. Cro-nan, judge trial referee, denied
the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence;
thereafter, the matter was tried to the court; subsequently,
the court denied the defendant's motion for a judgment of
acquittal; judgment of guilty, from which the defendant
appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Howard
I. Gemeiner, for the appellant (defendant).
Jennifer F. Miller, assistant state's attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's
attorney, and James Dinnan, senior assistant state's
attorney, for the appellee (state).
Prescott, Elgo and Moll, Js.
OPINION
MOLL,
J.
The
defendant, Stephen Hanisko, appeals from the judgment of
conviction, rendered after a court trial, of possession of
child pornography in the second degree in violation of
General Statutes (Rev. to 2009) §
53a-196e.[1] On appeal, the defendant claims that (1)
the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress
evidence seized pursuant to a search and seizure warrant
(search warrant) because the information contained in the
search warrant affidavit was stale at the time that the
search warrant was issued, and (2) the trial court's
‘‘evidentiary rulings'' were incorrect
because the court failed to recognize the oppressive delay
between the execution of the search warrant and the issuance
of the warrant for his arrest, resulting in a violation of
his right to due process. We disagree and, accordingly,
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The
following facts, which the trial court reasonably could have
found, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution
of the defendant's claims. On November 14, 2008, the
Connecticut State Police Computer Crimes and Electronic
Evidence Laboratory (computer crimes laboratory) received a
spreadsheet and a DVD from a special agent of the Wyoming
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (Wyoming special
agent). The spreadsheet contained Internet Protocol (IP)
addresses that had been captured during an investigation into
electronic file sharing of child pornography. Specifically,
the spreadsheet indicated that, between November 7 and 14,
2008, the computer associated with a particular IP address
(identified computer) was identified as a
‘‘download candidate''[2] for, what
appeared to be, twenty-five files of child pornography. The
DVD contained files of known child pornography, which the
computer crimes laboratory used for comparison against the
twenty-five files that were available for download from the
identified computer.
While
reviewing the data provided by the Wyoming special agent, the
Connecticut state police uncovered a match between one of the
twenty-five files listed on the spreadsheet and one file on
the DVD. The matching files contained two separate clips of
two different sets of male and female children, who appeared
to be between twelve and fourteen years old, engaging in
various sexual acts.
The
state police later determined that the holder of the Internet
services account associated with the identified computer
resided at 50 Carpenter Lane in Wallingford (property). On
August 13, 2009, Jonathan Carreiro and David Aresco,
detectives with the Connecticut State Police Computer Crimes
Unit (computer crimes unit), conducted a surveillance of the
property. Detective Carreiro observed, among other things, a
black sign labeled with the name
‘‘Hanisko'' to the left of the driveway.
On August 14, 2009, the Connecticut State Police Central
Criminal Intelligence Unit confirmed that the Internet
services account holder lived at the property and informed
Detective Carreiro that several other individuals resided
there as well, including the defendant. On August 18, 2009,
Detectives Carreiro and Aresco conducted a second
surveillance of the property. This time, Detective Carreiro
observed a white pickup truck in the driveway, which he later
determined was registered to the defendant.
On
September 10, 2009, Detectives Carreiro and Aresco obtained a
warrant to search the property and to seize certain described
categories of evidence of violations of General Statutes
§§ 53a-194[3] and 53a-196b.[4] In the search warrant
affidavit, Detectives Carreiro and Aresco provided the
foregoing details of their investigation and averred to the
following additional information. Both detectives are
assigned to the computer crimes laboratory and have received
training relating to the investigation of Internet related
crimes, child pornography crimes, and computer data analysis.
The detectives know from their training and experience that
so-called peer-to-peer networks are frequently used in the
trading of child pornography; individuals using peer-to-peer
file sharing networks can choose to install publicly
available software that facilitates the trading of images,
and such software allows those individuals to search for
pictures, movies, and other digital files. The detectives
know that information contained within a computer or other
media, even if deleted, often remains electronically stored
until the computer overwrites the space previously allocated
to the deleted file. On the basis of their training and
experience, and the training and experience of other law
enforcement personnel, the detectives know that individuals
who possess child pornography often will store such material
for future viewing and will maintain these materials
indefinitely if they believe that their illegal activities
have gone undetected. In light of the foregoing information,
the detectives averred that they had probable cause to
believe that evidence of violations of §§ 53a-194
and 53a-196b would be located on the property.
On
September 11, 2009, Detectives Carreiro and Aresco, along
with other state and local police officers, executed the
search warrant at the property. While there, Detective
Carreiro explained the purpose of the search warrant to the
defendant and asked him several questions. During their
conversation, the defendant expressed that he had used
Limewire, a peer-to-peer network, to download pornography.
Ultimately, the state police seized fifty-six pieces of
evidence, including eight hard drives and optical disks
containing forty-eight video files. Shortly thereafter, the
seized evidence was transported to the computer crimes
laboratory for a forensic examination.
Eventually,
the state police learned that, as a result of a backlog, the
computer crimes laboratory was unable to process evidence
that had been seized in multiple cases, including the
evidence seized from the property. Consequently, the computer
crimes unit began removing the seized items from the computer
crimes laboratory in order to conduct its own forensic
examination. Between April and August, 2013, Detectives
Carreiro and Aresco examined ...