Looking to navigate the complexities of public safety policy development and management? Lexipol is your go-to source for state-specific, fully developed policy services. Designed by industry experts and legal professionals, Lexipol helps your agency stay up to date with the latest standards, laws and best practices. Contact Lexipol at 844-312-9500 for expert assistance or request a demo.
UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 2024 WL 4343486 (1st Cir. 2024)
An investigator in Providence, Rhode Island, observed an electronic device using a specific IP address on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. He saw the device had shared and downloaded files of child pornography on multiple occasions. The investigator determined the subscriber of the IP address was the bookkeeper for St. Mary’s Church. The investigator went to a stone church with a “St. Mary’s Catholic Parish” sign in front of it and found a Wi-Fi network titled “St. Mary’s Church _Ext.” He obtained a search warrant for the “exterior buildings on the property to include the detached yellow building commonly known as the rectory.” According to the warrant, the search would “include storage spaces located on the premises used by residents.”
Detectives executed the search warrant and seized a computer and external hard drive from the priest’s office in the rectory. The devices belonged to a parish priest named James Ward Jackson. A subsequent forensic examination of the laptop’s hard drive revealed over 12,000 images and 1,300 videos depicting child sex abuse material. The priest was arrested for possession of this illegal content.
Jackson asked the trial court to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant execution. He argued the warrant did not describe with adequate particularity the place to be searched or the things to be seized. Since others besides Jackson lived in the rectory, he claimed the warrant did not specify an individual suspect or residence within the rectory to be searched, and thus amounted to a warrant to search several residences within the rectory.
The trial court ruled it could not “conclusively determine” whether the rectory was a single-family residence or a multi-unit dwelling. Notwithstanding, because the rectory appeared to lack the hallmarks typical of multi-unit dwellings (such as separate entrances, separate doorbells, separate mailboxes and independent living space), it was “best characterized as a single-family residence.” The court noted that — on the whole — the property to be searched “was described as accurately as could be reasonably expected.” The court also noted that even if the warrant was deficient in its description of the place to be searched, the good faith exception would allow admission of the evidence.
While Jackson was free on bail and under the supervision of his sister, Kansas detectives searched his bedroom and seized a computer and an external hard drive. The portable hard drive contained evidence of numerous deleted files with names indicative of child sexual abuse material. Jackson was taken into custody a second time and held until he was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.
The takeaway for officers: When preparing an affidavit for a search warrant, be cautious when describing a place to be searched — especially if it might potentially be a multi-unit dwelling. This might include a rooming house, dorm, halfway house or some similar residential facility. In this case, the court held the description was sufficient to guide the detectives’ search, but similar cases have resulted in suppression of evidence.
Read more Ken Wallentine case reviews here.
This article was featured in Lexipol’s Xiphos newsletter, a monthly legal-focused law enforcement newsletter authored by Ken Wallentine. Subscriptions are free for public safety officers, educators and public attorneys. Subscribe here!
