Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
In an April 2024 opinion regarding sexual exploitation of a minor, Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals sided with the defendant by ruling that the government should not have searched the defendant’s personal property without a warrant. The case revolved around the defendant’s spy camera, which he put in a bathroom to secretly record the young foster girls living in his home. On appeal, the court had to decide whether the officer searching the camera’s SD card had the right to do so without a warrant.
The Officer’s Search
The government first became aware of the hidden camera when a teenage foster girl living at the defendant’s house spotted it in the common bathroom and brought it to her Department of Child Safety caseworker. The caseworker called the police, and one of the police department’s detectives examined the device a few days later. On it, he found videos of the girls in the bathroom.
Proceedings Below
The defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, and his case went to trial. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officer should have had a warrant to search the SD card associated with the camera. The trial court denied this motion, and a jury ultimately found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant was sentenced to 90.5 years in prison.
The Defendant’s Appeal
The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that criminal procedure clearly indicates the officer should have gotten a court warrant before searching his private SD card. The government’s argument centered around the defendant’s so-called “abandonment” of the device – since he had left the camera in a shared bathroom, said the government, he essentially abandoned it and left it free for the officer to search.
The court disagreed with the government’s argument. It was incorrect to say, said the court, that the defendant abandoned the device when it remained in his house the whole time. The detective thus had no grounds to search the device without a warrant, and he should have applied for one with the trial court before beginning his search.
Criminal defendants have safely guarded protections under the Fourth Amendment, meaning an officer cannot search an individual’s personal property without strong legal basis. Because of these protections, the court reversed the defendant’s convictions and sentences, remanding the case for an entirely new trial.
Do You Need a Phoenix Sex Crimes Attorney?
At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we work relentlessly to get your charges dropped, because we understand how much is at stake when your freedom is on the line. Our team is aggressive, experienced, and thorough, and we take the time to develop an individualized strategy for each of our clients. If you haven’t yet spoken with an experienced Phoenix sex crimes attorney regarding your case, call us at the Law Office of James E. Novak for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.