Attorneys for a Mountain Home man charged with 99 counts of possessing child pornography have filed a motion seeking to have all evidence in the case thrown out.
The 19-page motion basically contends the initial search leading to the “cybertip” that launched the investigation and eventually implicated 33-year-old Steven Walski was done without a warrant
The motion asks that all subsequent warrants issued and statements made in the case be declared invalid as well.
Walski was arrested in early November last year following a several month investigation.
The investigation was triggered by a tip from Synchronoss, a company that offers various services to providers such as Verizon and AT&T. The tip went to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and was passed on to local law enforcement.
According to the probable cause affidavit, the user, later identified as Walski, had violated the company’s terms and conditions by manipulating an image containing Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).
During the investigation it was determined that several downloads of CSAM were made and they were reported to have been traced to Walski.
According to investigative reports, a large majority of the images depicted nude pre-pubescent females engaged in sexual contact with adults or who were “sexually posed.”
The motion filed by Walski’s attorneys – Gray Dellinger of Melbourne and Emily Reed of Mountain Home – contends that the affidavit used to obtain the warrant that led to Walski’s arrest is flawed in that there is no information on the actual informing party at Synchronoss.
The tip to the National Hotline for Missing and Exploited Children is only identified as coming from Synchronoss as a corporate entity, not from a specific individual.
In the motion, the attorneys write that there is no evidence in the affidavit for the initial warrant sought by Baxter County authorities to establish the reliability of the unknown informant at Synchronoss, or the reliability of the means by which Walski was linked to the purported images.
There have been rulings by a number of courts in different states on this issue.
Most have found that a “private search” for child pornography by corporate entities, such as AOL and other providers, is not a violation of a person’s fourth amendment rights.
As in the Baxter County case, the suspect material was identified by the use of electronic tools such as the Image Detection Filtering Process.
Once suspect material is identified, it is turned over to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
Courts have fairly consistently held that the providers and NCMEC are not police or agents of law enforcement and not required to have a warrant to check on suspect material being sent or received through their networks.
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI