Argued November 13, 2013
Under New Hampshire procedural rule this decision is subject to motion for rehearing, as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire reports.
Joseph A. Foster, attorney general ( Elizabeth C. Woodcock, assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for the State.
James B. Reis, assistant appellate defender, of Concord, on the brief and orally, for the defendant.
BASSETT, J. DALIANIS, C.J., and HICKS, CONBOY and LYNN, JJ., concurred.
The defendant, Robert Letoile, Jr., appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, on twenty-six charges of possession of child pornography. See RSA 649-A:3 (Supp. 2013). He argues that the Superior Court ( Delker, J.) erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence derived from the search of his home computer. We affirm.
The defendant is appealing the denial of his motion to suppress a second warrant after the superior court granted a suppression motion on the initial warrant. On April 11, 2010, the defendant's ex-wife complained to the Hampstead Police Department that, while using the defendant's computer, she clicked on the browsing history and found disturbing links to websites that potentially contained child pornography. She was not able to access the websites at that time because her internet connection was not working.
In a follow-up meeting with the police, the defendant's ex-wife explained that she had started checking the defendant's
browsing history six months earlier, and it was at that time that she first noticed child pornography on the defendant's computer. According to the police affidavit for the search warrant, she described the images as depicting " nude young undeveloped girls (well under 18 years of age)." She told the police that the links that she had viewed most recently had titles with the words " young girls/young teens."
Based upon this information, the police secured a search warrant and seized the defendant's computer. The defendant moved to suppress all evidence and statements obtained as a result of the search warrant, arguing, in part, that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it did not provide a sufficient description of the alleged child pornography. In September 2011, after a hearing, the superior court ...