In the photo above, Minneapolis Police Chief Dolan--who represents law and order--defends himself to the Public Safety & Health Committee of the City Council. Dolan triumphed, 3-2-1.
On another note...
I'm actually kind of glad that somebody managed to get my Twitter account temporarily suspended and then bragged about it on the Minneapolis Issues List. As it turns out, this served as a valuable early warning that I need to protect and preserve the content of this blog from any attempts to interfere with it by, for example, making b.s. complaints to Google.
Yeah, that would be the same Google that's pulling out of CHINA, for god's sake, because of freedom of speech issues. Er, yeah, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
Anyway, even as I type these words, my blog is being mirrored and replicated to another server so all the content will be preserved in case of some emergency. This will take about, oh, six hours.
In the meantime, I would ask supporters of Johnny Northside to go into the guts of Blogspot and file reports saying how great this blog is, and how--even though we go to the very edge of free speech--we never go beyond that edge. There is ABSOLUTELY NO LAW against publishing the addresses of Level Three sex offenders in the State of Minnesota. In fact, each time somebody shares such address information--even verbally--they are, in effect, publishing the info. The only difference is the degree of dissemination.
As for Twitter, I'm sure I will have it back up again soon enough or, in the worse case, I'll just get another account.
Whatever.
(Do not click "Read More")
When I load the page it tries to make me log into twitter. I don't know what that's all about. Thanks for your blog JNS. I think NoMi is doomed, but it is an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteWas it not Al Flowers that sued for his MTN show getting shut down?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it just make more sense to call a truce? Stop posting the sex perverts names, and everyone will stop hassleing each other. Work on getting the level 3s out of no. mpls by talking to Don Samuals and other elected people. You're just bringing shitstorm on yourself and it ain't doing anyone no good.
ReplyDeleteIt was doing that to me earlier too, but now it is not.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone on twitter, I started a #JNSShutdown hashtag. Feel free to check it.
ReplyDeleteThis is BS.
@Anon 936... it aint' doing who any good? you? are you one of the perv's?? cause there are perv's trying to walk amongst us decent people as if they ain't pervs.
ReplyDeletethey've been called out and shit IS hitting the fan. But it's the pervs that need to back off, duck their heads and stay out of shit - it ain't Johnny Northside that needs to back off.
It's one of your fellow pervs that stirred the pot with his 96 page legal bullshit - get your thumb down on him and perhaps you pervs can start flying under the radar again.
Here's some sad, sick criminal history available to the public and therefore protected under FREE SPEECH:
ReplyDeleteJoel Cisarsky Brand: apparently he was a park building employee and he liked to fondle little boys:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0408/opa031823-0831.htm
http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=704408384
When a private individual (blogger) engages in business with another private individual (content host), the blogger's first amendment rights are irrelevant to the commercial transaction. The content host is free to regulate the content it hosts, even to the extent that it may choose to refuse service to the blogger.
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment protects the rights of the individual citizens vis a vis the State.
So the real truth comes out. It's not about making your community safe. You are just "getting back" at a guy who filed a lawsuit against you. You say if he stops, you'll stop. Just like 2 kids on the playground throwing sand at each other. You both need to grow up before you get a spanking and sent to your room.
ReplyDelete@Anon 315 - don't confuse MY anonymous comments with JNS - I'm the one that said one of the 'fellow pervs' stirred the pot - I don't think JNS is doing this to get BACK at Pete the Pedophile for filing a lawsuit - JNS is doing it because it NEEDS to be done because the lid has been lifted off the nasty boiling pot of L3SO stew that the state of MN is cooking up here in northside. But there is another pedophile going after Johnny now with the twitter suspension and who knows what else he is trying to do. And it ain't gonna be Johnny getting his name smeared - it will be the pedophile, when the spot light is shined on the cock roaches.
ReplyDeleteSo no - you're wrong - this isn't retaliation against Pete the Pedophile - it's about uncovering the truth of what the DOC is doing.
Hey anon 3:19 and 9:36 when you got 3 and 4 Lev3SO on virtually every other f'in corner, wich doubles as a school bus stop twice a day, in your nice little nieghborhood then we in Nomiland will stop bitchin! And if you think the state is watchin these fools then you are the fool.
ReplyDeleteT Jaramillo
So what is it that the DOC is doing? Not all of the level 3's are no longer on supervision. DOC has no control over those folks.
ReplyDelete@T Jaramillo - I hear ya my friend - I believe our Anon936&315 commenter IS a sex offender - a chomo (child molester) - therefore it's in his best interest if we just back off and call a truce.
ReplyDeleteBut, sadly, Pete the Pedophile had to keep doing what he does - suing people all around the neighborhood, and that made some folks start to look into the laws and issues around the L3SOs - low and behold what has found? A dangerous concentration caused by the State DOC and the slummy slum landlords who don't blink an eye at signing leases with L3SOs when they know their units are already full of 'em.
Someone needs to shine a light on the cockroaches that scurry around in the dark. Who's ready for the spotlight?
Here's a hint - if you don't want to be exposed as the chomo that you are - keep your nose out of other peoples business! (you know who I'm talking to!)
NoMi is full of criminals. It's a good place to put the L3SO's because the cops are already thick there harassing the other people. Two birds with one stone, you know?
ReplyDeleteSkrew you folks. I say call a truce and settle down and you call me a perv. You all just a bunch of pricks hope you end up in jail with one of them pervs.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I am not publishing the addresses of Level Three sex offenders to "get back" at Pete.
ReplyDeleteNo, rather, Pete is the straw that broke the camel's back or, more to the point, he gave the camel a good hard slap and now the camel is furious.
In regard to the sad, sick criminal history of Joel Cisarsky Brand, well, one moment...
To the person calling for a "truce."
ReplyDeleteWhat terms are you proposing? Who would be the parties to the truce?
I want to make one thing clear: this crusade (if you will allow me the term) is directed only at L3S0s. If the Level Ones and Twos and the convicted pervs who aren't categorized by levels will keep their head down and their nose clean and abide by the terms of their probation, I have no interest in them AT THIS TIME.
Unfortunately, I have solid reason to believe that a "sex offender not categorized by level" stuck his nose into this matter--big time--and this has caused, er, some strong feelings. I still have no intention of going after twos, threes and "uncategorized run of the mill convicted pervs" but when a genie of conflict gets out of the bottle...
Who knows what the consequences will be?
Tell me more about this idea of a truce.
Getting back to Joel Cisarsky Brand, or Joel C. Brand, that is ONE SICK PERV.
ReplyDeleteHere is his criminal history as found on the State Court website.
Register of Actions
Case No. 27-CR-02-073703
State of Minnesota vs JOEL CISARSKY BRAND §
Case Type: Crim/Traf Mandatory
Date Filed: 12/18/2002
Location: Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Party Information
Lead Attorneys
Defendant
BRAND, JOEL CISARSKY
EDINA, MN 55436
Male
05/07/1957
Jurisdiction
State of Minnesota
Charge Information
Charges: BRAND, JOEL CISARSKY
Statute
Level
Date
1. CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE 1ST DEGREE (Not applicable - GOC) 609.342S1.A Felony 12/19/2000
2. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC) 617.247S4.A Felony 08/29/2002
3. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC) 617.247S4.A Felony 11/18/2001
4. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC) 617.247S4.A Felony 11/18/2001
Events & Orders of the Court
DISPOSITIONS
06/19/2003
Disposition (Judicial Officer: Roe, Katherian D.)
2. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC)
Convicted
06/19/2003
Disposition (Judicial Officer: Roe, Katherian D.)
3. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC)
Convicted
06/19/2003
Disposition (Judicial Officer: Roe, Katherian D.)
4. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC)
Convicted
10/20/2003
Disposition (Judicial Officer: Roe, Katherian D.)
1. CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE 1ST DEGREE (Not applicable - GOC)
Dismissed
12/03/2003
Sentenced (Judicial Officer: Roe, Katherian D.)
2. POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING A MINOR (Not applicable - GOC)
08/29/2002 (FEL) 617.247S4.A (CNVOFFENSE)
Condition - Adult:
1. Conditions, other, 12/03/2003 - 12/03/2008, , Active 12/03/2008
Comment: SAME IMPOSED SANCTIONS APPLY - ACTIVE: 12/03/2003 CONCURRENT WITH COUNTS 3-4
---------
This information was not in a part of the internet accessible by Google Bots.
It is now.
To the helpful army of active JNS blog readers, I don't have time to do everything. If you feel there are individuals or entities who need to have this specific information, feel free to disseminate it.
Joel C. Brand is not a Level Three--he's not even on probation--so I don't care that much about him. My emphasis is the Level Three sex offenders, not the ones, twos, uncategorized and not-even-on-probation run of the mill sickos.
ReplyDeleteBut this is a really disturbing case and, for my own reasons, I choose to discuss and highlight this matter.
One comment rejected, some kind of blah blah blah about how fathers who don't pay child support...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'd love to say more but I'm busy working my butt off right now to pay my child support, so F U.
Somebody get me a PDF of that sick f*** Joel C. Brand's court file? Puh-lease?
John, I wouldn't put too much faith in the actuarial tools that are used to predict sex offender recidivism. There's no crystal ball to predict what people will do. Those tests they give people are deeply flawed.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/04/19_gundersond_mnsostr/
Psychology is voodoo science, at best.
I want this stuff on my blog, even though it can be turned up on Google. I don't know if the PDF itself is searchable, it just comes up when I'm looking for stuff on Joel Cisarsky Brand.
ReplyDeleteSince there is a limit on text, I'll have to put it up a few pieces at a time...
--------
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A03-1823
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Joel Cisarsky Brand,
Appellant.
Filed August 31, 2004
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 02073703
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, David C. Brown, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Steven J. Meshbesher, Meshbesher & Associates, P.A., 225 Lumber Exchange Building, 10 South 5th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Minge, Presiding Judge, Harten, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of possession of pornographic work involving minors in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2002), and his sentence, arguing that (1) evidence obtained from his residence should have been suppressed, along with all evidence derived therefrom, because the search warrant was not supported by a sufficient nexus between the crime and appellant’s residence; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant to a stay of execution rather than a stay of imposition. We affirm.
FACTS
On August 28, 2002, Sergeant Mark Swanson applied for a search warrant to search appellant Joel Cisarsky Brand’s residence. The supporting affidavit referenced information gathered from the alleged victim’s mother, an interview with the alleged victim, a report by Jennifer Anderson (a child interview specialist), 24 interviews of Kenny Park current and former employees, and Sgt. Swanson’s own training and experience. The supporting affidavit stated the following, in relevant part:
The victim is an 8 yr old male – (NWN)[.] The suspect is a Park Director at Kenny Park [i]n Minneapolis, his name is Joel Brand.
. . . .
On July 24, 2002 a police report was written by Sgt. Schultz . . . [who] talked to the mother of (victim) NWN, who attends classes at Kenny Park. The information received for that report shows that Kenny Park Director Joel Brand, calls NWN “baby cheeks, and pretty eyes.” . . .
. . . .
On 8-8-02 a CornerHouse interview was conducted by Jennifer Anderson . . . . In her written evaluation report Anderson writes, “results of the interview indicate that abuse appears to have occurred.” The victim reported fondling of his breasts, penis, and buttocks as well as digital penetration of his anus[.]
In the CornerHouse report, NWN named Brand as the suspect.
The penetration and fondling was done while the victim was sitting on Brand’s lap. Brand used his finger to fondle the victim’s penis and inserted his finger into the victim’s anus. It is unclear as to how many times these events occurred or when they happened. They did occur at Kenny Park.
NWN reported that [B]rand told him not to tell anyone or Brand would go to jail and lose his job.
. . . .
Oh, here is more...
ReplyDeleteLunch for the Google bots! Enjoy, little Google bots, enjoy!
-------
Your affiant has learned that Brand appears in the changing area of the park building when children are changing their clothing and putting on their swimming suits. According to a staff member, Brand then made inappropriate comments about the children and their physical appearance, including their buttocks.
Brand also has appeared in the classroom to assist in putting sunscreen on the children in the park classes. The sunscreen was applied to the inner portion of the children’s legs by Brand. This was done for multiple days in a row during the summer time, when it was not Brand’s job to do so.
According to the police report, Brand has remarked to a park staff member that he is not allowed to be around children, and he has been told to stay away from children.
In the course of this investigation I have interviewed the interim Kenny Park Director Lori Jorgenson. I was told that Brand took many pictures of events and children at the park. The pictures [were] taken with a Polaroid camera, a film camera, and a digital camera. Brand would e-mail digital pictures from his work computer to his home computer, and from his home computer to his work computer.
I have also learned from the park staff that Brand had set up an unauthorized hidden wireless camera system, which he used to monitor the park building from his desk. This camera system consisted of a wireless camera, a receiver, and a monitor.
. . . .
Your affiant wishes to execute a search warrant at the home of Joel Cisarsky Brand . . . . Your affiant has over 13 years of law [e]nforcement experience. Through my training and experience it is known that sex offenders who abuse children will keep and maintain pornography, which excites them and fosters their deviant fantasies. These offenders will keep either magazine or pictoral photographs, VHS videotapes, or use the computer internet to store, distribute and meet potential juvenile victims.
Your affiant has reason to believe that Brand was e‑mailing photographic images of park patrons from Kenny Park, back and forth from his work desk computer and his home computer.
. . . .
Your affiant requests a search to be conducted at the home of Joel Cisarsky Brand in order to find evidence which will tend to show [that] he is sexually attracted to juvenile males, and that he has committed these sexual acts upon victim NWN. Your affiant wishes to seize all illegal pornography and to examine the computer hard drive and or disks which may have images of juveniles engaging in sexual acts or poses.
Your affiant also wishes to search Brand’s residence for any handwritten letters, diaries or notebooks that may contain sexual writings of fantasies involving juvenile males, and recovering any information on other potential juvenile males.
A district court judge determined that probable cause existed and signed the warrant. The warrant authorized the police to seize the following, among other things:
All [p]hotographs of any children registered in any Kenny Park class or event.
All homemade or commercially produced pornography which depicts juvenile males posing or engaging in sexual acts, naked or partially naked.
All homemade or commercially produced pornography on film or VHS videotape that depicts juvenile males engaging in sexual acts.
Digital camera equipment, video tapes or any other items that may be used for the possession and distribution of child pornography.
Computer systems, including but not limited to, the main computer box, monitors, scanners[,] modems, and/or other peripheral devices.
Data contained on either hard drives or removable media, to include deleted files, e-mail files that may show the distribution of child pornography, chat line logs that may identify children being enticed on line or the distribution o[f] child pornography.
--------------
On August 29, 2002, the search warrant was executed at appellant’s residence. Police seized VHS videotapes, floppy disks, a laptop computer, and two additional computer hard drives. On September 27, 2002, Sgt. Swanson applied for a second search warrant on the computers that were seized from appellant’s home. The supporting affidavit for the second search warrant included much of the same information supplied in the first supporting affidavit, along with the information found from the VHS tapes and computer disks seized under the first warrant[1] and information from Sgt. Jane Moore, a member of the Minneapolis Police Department Sex Crimes Unit and the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The second warrant was authorized and executed. A search of appellant’s computers revealed more than 200 images of child pornography.
ReplyDeleteAppellant was charged with three counts of possession of pornographic work involving minors in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2002), and one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2002). The criminal-sexual-conduct charge was later dismissed. Appellant moved to suppress all evidence seized from his home and all evidence seized pursuant to subsequent search warrants, claiming that the initial search warrant did not establish probable cause to search his home.[2] The district court denied appellant’s motion, concluding that the search warrant was adequately supported by probable cause. After a bench trial, appellant was found guilty on all three counts of illegal possession of pornographic works. The district court sentenced appellant to a stay of execution of all three counts, concurrently for a period of five years with conditions. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
I.
The first issue is whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding that the search warrant authorizing the search of appellant’s residence and seizure of certain items was supported by probable cause. The United States and Minnesota Constitutions provide that warrants must be supported by probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. “A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person, and particularly describing the property or thing to be seized, and particularly describing the place to be searched.” Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2002).
We will uphold a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant if the record contains a substantial basis to conclude that the application provided probable cause. State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 787-88 (Minn. 1999). In this context, a substantial basis is indicated by a fair probability, given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624, 633 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)). This includes not only a search for fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband, but also a search for “mere evidence.” Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 306-07, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 1650 (1967). The reviewing court should give great deference to the issuing judge’s determination of probable cause and not subject that determination to a rigorous de novo review. State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 268 (Minn. 1985). This court is not to engage in a “hypertechnical examination of the affidavit.” State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Minn. App. 1998) (quotation omitted). Cases that are doubtful should be resolved in favor of the issuance of a warrant. See State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn. 1990).
On August 29, 2002, the search warrant was executed at appellant’s residence. Police seized VHS videotapes, floppy disks, a laptop computer, and two additional computer hard drives. On September 27, 2002, Sgt. Swanson applied for a second search warrant on the computers that were seized from appellant’s home.
ReplyDeleteThe supporting affidavit for the second search warrant included much of the same information supplied in the first supporting affidavit, along with the information found from the VHS tapes and computer disks seized under the first warrant[1] and information from Sgt. Jane Moore, a member of the Minneapolis Police Department Sex Crimes Unit and the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The second warrant was authorized and executed. A search of appellant’s computers revealed more than 200 images of child pornography.
Appellant was charged with three counts of possession of pornographic work involving minors in violation of Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2002), and one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2002). The criminal-sexual-conduct charge was later dismissed. Appellant moved to suppress all evidence seized from his home and all evidence seized pursuant to subsequent search warrants, claiming that the initial search warrant did not establish probable cause to search his home.[2] The district court denied appellant’s motion, concluding that the search warrant was adequately supported by probable cause. After a bench trial, appellant was found guilty on all three counts of illegal possession of pornographic works. The district court sentenced appellant to a stay of execution of all three counts, concurrently for a period of five years with conditions. This appeal follows.
The first issue is whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding that the search warrant authorizing the search of appellant’s residence and seizure of certain items was supported by probable cause. The United States and Minnesota Constitutions provide that warrants must be supported by probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. “A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person, and particularly describing the property or thing to be seized, and particularly describing the place to be searched.” Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2002).
ReplyDeleteWe will uphold a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant if the record contains a substantial basis to conclude that the application provided probable cause. State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 787-88 (Minn. 1999). In this context, a substantial basis is indicated by a fair probability, given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624, 633 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)). This includes not only a search for fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband, but also a search for “mere evidence.” Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 306-07, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 1650 (1967). The reviewing court should give great deference to the issuing judge’s determination of probable cause and not subject that determination to a rigorous de novo review. State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 268 (Minn. 1985). This court is not to engage in a “hypertechnical examination of the affidavit.” State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Minn. App. 1998) (quotation omitted). Cases that are doubtful should be resolved in favor of the issuance of a warrant. See State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn. 1990).
An affidavit fails to support probable cause when it includes no “details . . . that would permit the issuing magistrate to independently evaluate” whether probable cause exists. State v. Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744, 749 (Minn. 1998). Probable cause exists if a supporting “affidavit sets forth competent evidence sufficient to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe there is a basis for the search.” State v. Richardson, 514 N.W.2d 573, 579 (Minn. App. 1994). It is undisputed here that if the initial search warrant was not supported by probable cause, then all evidence seized as a result of that search, along with all evidence seized as a result of the subsequent searches, should be suppressed. See State v. Akers, 636 N.W.2d 841, 844 (Minn. App. 2001).
Police Officer’s Training and Experience
Appellant argues that it was improper for the district court to rely on Sgt. Swanson’s declarations, claiming that they were based only on mere suspicion because the record does not show that Sgt. Swanson has any training or experience specific to sexual crimes or sexual offenders. Police officers may rely on training and experience to draw inferences in their affidavits. Richardson, 514 N.W.2d at 579. An inference drawn by police officers must give rise to more than “[m]ere suspicion.” State v. Skoog, 351 N.W.2d 380, 381 (Minn. App. 1984). An issuing judge may not base a finding of probable cause on an investigator’s “wholly conclusory statement.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 239, 103 S. Ct. at 2332. But the issuing judge “is entitled to draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances” set forth in the affidavit. State v. Eggler, 372 N.W.2d 12, 15 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Sept. 19, 1985). And a police officer’s training and experience is a proper factor to consider in making a probable-cause determination. State v. Brennan, 674 N.W.2d 200, 204 (Minn. App. 2004) (concluding that probable cause to search a house for evidence of child pornography exists when the totality of the circumstances, including the training and experience of the affiant and the nature of the crime, establishes a fair probability that child pornography will be found in the house), review denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 2004); State v. Miller, 666 N.W.2d 703, 714 (Minn. 2003).
ReplyDeleteWhile a police officer may include details regarding his training and experience in order to help the district court draw its conclusions, there is no requirement that he do so. Here, Sgt. Swanson had ample evidence to make the inference drawn reasonable and more than a mere suspicion. Therefore, the district court did not err in considering Sgt. Swanson’s opinion based on his training and experience as part of its probable cause determination.[3]
Sufficient Nexus
Appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion because Sgt. Swanson’s supporting affidavit did not include any factual evidence that provided a nexus between the alleged sexual conduct and the search of appellant’s home. The Minnesota Supreme Court “has historically required a direct connection, or nexus, between the alleged crime and the particular place to be searched.” Souto, 578 N.W.2d at 747. In determining whether a nexus exists, the issuing judge must consider the following factors: “the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would normally keep the items.” Harris, 589 N.W.2d at 788 (quoting State v. Pierce, 358 N.W.2d 672, 673 (Minn. 1984)). “[I]nformation linking the crime to the place to be searched and the freshness of the information” are also relevant. Souto, 578 N.W.2d at 747. In the case of searching for “mere evidence,” finding a nexus means there must be probable cause “to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction.” Warden, 387 U.S. at 307, 87 S. Ct. at 1650.
ReplyDeleteAppellant asserts that the only link between appellant’s residence and Kenny Park, where the alleged sexual abuse occurred, is the statement that appellant e-mailed digital pictures taken of events and children at the park from his work computer to his home computer, and because the affidavit does not allege that the pictures e-mailed were sexual in nature or included images of the victim, this evidence does not provide a sufficient nexus. Appellant also asserts that Brennan is distinguishable because in Brennan, child pornography was first found on the defendant’s work laptop, and the defendant admitted to storing the images of child pornography on that computer. Brennan, 674 N.W.2d at 202-03. In contrast, appellant asserts there were no facts presented here, other than Sgt. Swanson’s opinion, that supported the inference that appellant was involved with child pornography.
(And was a sick f***ing f***)
(Oh, wait, that wasn't part of the original opinion. My bad)
We conclude that the supporting affidavit did include factual evidence that provided a sufficient nexus. First, there is no requirement that child pornography must be found in one place (i.e., work) before an inference can be made that it will be found in the suspect’s home. See United States v. Terry, 305 F.3d 818, 820, 823 (8th Cir. 2002) (upholding a warrant to search defendant’s home for child pornography after police found photo albums with pictures of young children with sexual captions and a videotape depicting inappropriate touching of a young girl).
ReplyDeleteIn making a probable-cause determination, courts must consider the nature of the crime “and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would normally keep the items [sought].” Harris, 589 N.W.2d at 788. Here, appellant was originally being investigated for criminal sexual conduct. A criminal-sexual-conduct case is, similar to a child-pornography case, “the type of case in which courts may properly consider an affiant’s training and experience in making the probable-cause determination because the court could reasonably draw an inference that the suspect would keep [any proof of his inappropriate conduct or proof of his sexual attraction to juvenile males][4] in a place considered safe and secret, like the home.”
See Brennan, 674 N.W.2d at 206 (citing United States v. Chrobak, 289 F.3d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that affiant’s statement, based on her experience, that pedophiles maintain their child pornography in a secure place provided sufficient nexus to the defendant’s home)).
Further, in considering the nexus factors, the issuing judge “is entitled to draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances” set forth in the affidavit given the totality of the circumstances. Eggler, 372 N.W.2d at 15. While taking pictures of children in a park or e-mailing pictures between home and work computers may seem innocent, we must view these facts in light of the others. See Wiley, 366 N.W.2d at 268 (stating that even if each component, standing alone, is insufficient to establish probable cause, “the components viewed together may reveal . . . an internal coherence that gives weight to the whole”) (quotation omitted).
First, NWN implicated appellant in his own statement, as did Jennifer Anderson. Second, several witnesses stated that appellant participated in unusual behavior with the children, including appearing in the children’s changing room, making inappropriate comments about the children’s physical appearances, and applying sunscreen to the inner portion of children’s legs when it was not his job to do so. Third, the interim park director stated that appellant took many pictures of park events, including pictures of children who frequented the park, and e-mailed those pictures to his home computer. Fourth, digital photos are easily downloaded onto computers and easily sent to other computers via e-mail. Fifth, Sgt. Swanson stated that based upon his 13 years’ experience in law enforcement, he knew that sex offenders who abuse children will keep and maintain pornography that excites them and fosters their fantasies. And sixth, criminal sexual conduct is a crime commonly committed in secret. Considering the nature of the crime, it is reasonable to infer that any evidence of the crime itself or evidence of a sexual attraction to juvenile males would be kept in a safe and secretive place like the home.
The factors supporting the district court’s determination of probable cause in this case may not have supported a finding of probable cause to search appellant’s home if viewed individually. But viewing the evidence under the “totality of the circumstances” and with deference given to the issuing court’s determination, the facts establish a substantial basis to believe that there was a fair probability that evidence of criminal sexual conduct or child pornography would be found in appellant’s home. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding probable cause and issuing the search warrant.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the Scope of the Warrant
Appellant also argues that the items seized from his computers were beyond the permissible scope of the warrant because there were no means used to confine the search to searching by file name, directory, sub-directory, specific key words or phrases, or particular types of files. “Generally, the seizure of some items beyond those specified in a search warrant does not alone require suppression of those items lawfully seized.” State v. Bonynge, 450 N.W.2d 331, 337 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Feb. 21, 1990). “Only when the officers show a flagrant disregard for the terms of a warrant should all the evidence seized be suppressed.” Id.
Here, the second search warrant authorized a search of the computer hard drives for “deleted files, email files that may show the distribution of child pornography, chat line logs that may identify children being enticed on line or the distribution o[f] child pornography.” And Detective Kathryn Bushman’s report reflects that she did place some limits on the search parameters. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying suppression of the evidence as beyond the scope of the warrant because the police were authorized to search the hard drives for child pornography, and Bushman did not flagrantly disregard the scope of the search warrant.
The next issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant to a stay of execution instead of a stay of imposition. A reviewing court will not interfere with the district court’s decision regarding sentencing unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Lundberg, 575 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. May 20, 1998).
ReplyDeleteAppellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a stay-of-execution sentence because appellant has no prior criminal history and the crime at issue is assigned a low severity level. The sentencing guidelines commission “recommends that stays of imposition be used as the means of granting a stayed sentence for felons convicted of lower severity offenses with low criminal history scores.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines III.A.1. But the comments also state that “[t]he use of either a stay of imposition or stay of execution is at the discretion of the judge.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines cmt. III.A.101; see also State v. Webber, 382 N.W.2d 567, 568 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that the district court has broad discretion in sentencing and concluding that there was no “compelling reason” to interfere with that discretion). Appellant has not presented a compelling reason to interfere with the district court’s proper exercise of its discretion.
Affirmed.
[1] One of the computer disks revealed stories about juvenile males being punched in the stomach and descriptions of their penis and “balls” as they were being struck. Two of the VHS videotapes showed appellant lying naked hitting himself hard in the stomach with certain objects. The videotapes also depict appellant masturbating.
[2] After appellant had been charged, Sgt. Swanson obtained and executed three other search warrants, all pertaining to appellant’s employment, volunteer, and disciplinary records.
[3] Appellant cites State v. Secord, 614 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Sept. 13, 2000), for the proposition that there was not sufficient information in the affidavit to indicate that appellant had pornography in his home. We conclude that Secord is distinguishable. There, the district court refused to consider the police affiant’s opinion based on his training and experience, but the state waived the argument on appeal. Id. at 229-30. Also, the court noted that the affiant’s opinions were the “only connection” between the materials found in the car and the defendant’s home. Id. at 229. Here, not only did the district court consider Sgt. Swanson’s opinion, but there was also other evidence in the affidavit explaining the link to appellant’s residence.
[4] We see no reason why the possession of child pornography could not have been offered as evidence in the criminal-sexual-conduct prosecution to convince the jury that appellant is sexually attracted to juvenile males, which would assist the state in proving that appellant sexually assaulted NWN.
Why are you targeting the gay community with your "No Chomos" logo on your blog. Opposite sex cases are just as evil as those that involve same sex offences. Your use of the NoChomos logo is a direct attack on the Minneapolis GLBT community and we demand you take that down immediately. We would also like to see a public apology for draging us into your which hunt.
ReplyDeleteThe No Chomos logo means no 'child molesters' - it's not about gender.
ReplyDeleteChild molester = ch-mo with an o to bridge the sound I suppose.
Chomo is slang for child molester. See Urban dictionary.
I also agree with anon 1:04.
ReplyDeleteThe GLBT community already has to deal with the unfair and inaccurate stereotype of being associated with pedophilia. The "No Chomos" logo maligns that group and furthers that stereotype.
Furthermore, it's redundant. Readers won't have to look too far to see that the L3SO issue is a priority to you. Yet this blog attempts to tackle NoMi issues of all kinds. My preference would be to use the space blogger makes available for add-ons only for those that increase the functionality of the blog (i.e. recent comments, twitter feeds, other NoMi blogs, etc).
Since this particular add-on serves no practical purpose AND it offends a particular demographic - a demographic that has been crucial to the revitalization this blog loves, no less - I say take the logo down.
It's pretty clear JNS is just a racist. All the offenders he's targeting are either people of color, and or gay.
ReplyDeleteAnd each time he shuts down a slumlord its people of color that get displaced. Disadvantaged families are victimized by his actions. Don't ever see anything on this blog about a white persons house having a code violation. Looks more like his goal is to whiten up his neighborhood.
First of all, I don't believe the "why are you targeting the gay community" anonymous comment actually came from the gay community. "Chomo" is in the urban dictionary and stands for "child molester."
ReplyDeleteHowever, I didn't really think about how it rhymes with "homo" and could be interpreted as a play on words. Therefore, I have changed the heading to "No Child Molesters."
I'm not taking down the image. The shocking concentration of Level Three sex offenders in my neighborhood is a pressing issue and, furthermore, the image replaces my Twitter gadget until I get that gadget back where it belongs because some SYMPATHIZER OF CHILD MOLESTERS complained to Twitter about me printing addresses.
As for the tired "racist" accusation, yeah, here's some names for you: Paul Koenig. Jon Helgason. Thomas Balko. Peter Rickmyer. I could go on for quite a while, and including anonymous dirtbags like that guy in the Mercedes who was cruising for hookers around the Jordan Pond, and it was caught on camera when I had words with him.
I am an equal opportunity offender.
This is a compromise I'm 100% comfortable with. I too wondered about the legitimacy of the SOURCE of this complaint. The whole "it's in the urban dictionary" argument didn't hold much water for me though. I hadn't heard the term until recently, it's not too hard to figure out what it means, but it is phonetically very similar to "homo." So regardless of its broader use, I felt it was inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI still think the logo is redundant. But John, how many times after a drink or two do I start to tell you an anecdote you've already heard before? If I can't put up with a little redundancy from you, that makes me quite the hypocrite.
The "Johnny's a racist!" stuff cracks me up every time. To John's response, I'll add: What about Rosie Lee? That's the African-American woman with her seven kids who was profiled by the Strib as a victim of Koenig. We helped get the sewer line fixed so she didn't have raw sewage in her basement. She's still looking to move - not because any actions related to the JNS blog displaced her, but because Koenig is/was a SLUMLORD who failed to manage his properties well.
Johnny, here's a simple solution to repair any stigma, real or imagined on the part of the GLBT community; change the designation chomo to chimo. It really makes more sense anyway. CHIld MOlester. That way there is no homophone to rile up the thin skinned or guilty by association contingent.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Brand will think twice about messing with JNS again. He's the guy who caused @NorthsideJohnny to be shut down right? Long live JNS!
ReplyDeleteWho knows who tried to have @northsidejohnny shut down. Doesn't matter - it will be put back up.
ReplyDeleteBut Joel Brand is a convicted possessor of child porn, who was employed by the city of minneapolis. His crim history came to some people's attention and the public records have been shared here with the readers of JNS.
@NorthsideJohnny and Joel Brand are two seperate issues.
Obviously, it's more than likely because they either don't like your tactics or they just don't like you (I'm seeing a whole lot of that on several different forums and blogs). I realize that you're most likely equating "sympathy for child molesters" with their hatred, but that doesn't mean that such individuals are actually sympathizers. They care more about pissing you off, not that they're helping sex offenders.
ReplyDelete(At least, I sincerely hope they aren't really advocating for molesters' rights...but then again, there are groups in Europe who are trying to get the legal age of consent changed to eight, so who knows anymore.)
I got so caught up in other things, I completely forgot to post the Bob Dylan lyric from Motorpsycho Nightmare that immediately came to mind when people tried to shut down this blog.
ReplyDelete"Well I don't figure I'll be back there for a spell
Even though Rita moved away and got a job at a motel.
He still waits for me, constant on the sly,
He wants to turn me in to the FBI.
Me, I romp and stomp, thankful as I romp,
Without freedom of speech, I might be in the swamp."
To Anonymous at 10:19.
ReplyDeleteThat's great. Let's start using the term here and then, after a while, make a submission to urban dictionary.
Here ye, here ye: The term is "Chimo" for "Child Molester," not "chomo," a term which I will refrain from using.
In fact, I'm going to go change the gadget to say "No Chimos."
Johnny, wow! my own little make a difference to further your cause!
ReplyDeleteI have a friend who is a correctional officer in another state, and chimo is the official word used there by staff and inmates alike.
Linguistically, the other way looks like a corrupted urban mash-up to bring derision on both molesters and the GLBTs. Such mentalities are not prone to making distinctions. I take Urban Dictionary, like Wikipedia, with a grain of salt and consider it light entertainment and a place to start a query, not the final authority.
(sorry, I'm a word wonk)
BTW, Thanks for what you're doing here in your blog. This should be of interest not only to parents (like me), but to homesteaded property owners who may someday want to sell their home and not have to take a financial hit due to a concentration of neighbors of ill-repute. (Yes, I am shamelessly petit-bourgeois).
I like your idea of their own special island where L3SOs idle hands and twisted minds do not require constant worry from parents or any other person in their preferred demographic.
EDITORIAL-RANT
Perhaps if Obama decides to repatriate or grant guest visas to the Gitmo detainees, the base could be used for housing the L3SOs of America. Castro shouldn't mind; being a Marxist, he's not too concerned about property values, and it's about time we returned his Mariel favor. /rant
I LOVE our new 'petite-bourgeois' commenter.
ReplyDeleteYou just dubbed yourself your own JNS blog identity.
You are now Petit-bourgeois neighbor.
Put it in the Name field next time.
<3 !
Why empty Gitmo? Just mix in the level 3's and let them all hang out.
ReplyDeleteCan someone please post a pronunciation guide for this new term?
ReplyDeleteIs it "ch-EYE-mo?"
Or "CHEE-mo?"
I'm guessing the former based on the pronunciation of "child" but I figured I'd check...
I'm going to go with CHI-mo.
ReplyDeleteLike a chai beverage.
And mo, rhymes with slow.
Emphasis on the first syllable.
CHI-mo.
Ranty, Ding ding ding to Johnny on the pronunciation; he sounded the alarum and chimes the alarm. Phonetically speaking, it's pronounced chime-o.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:11 (snork!), I'm afraid they would get along too well to mix together. I wouldn't want them comparing notes from their respective play books; NAMBLA and the one the detainees' take as their raison d'etre. I don't want to muddy the waters here with that, though.
MeganG, thanks for the official welcome and the newly minted nom-de-guerre. I have been considering what to style myself; I thought about Independent Thinker, or Unknown Legend (I swear Neal Young MUST know me ;-) ) (just kidding.) But Petit Bourgeois Proud it is! As long as I don't go the way of the kulaks; I'm not PC, and the only diversity I worship is the individual.
Time for bed. AM comes too early.
Fight the Good Fight!
Petit Bourgeois
You're planning to be a regular here, huh?
ReplyDeleteAs Karl Marks DID NOT say: all power to the Petit Bourgeois.
I could go with chime-o instead of chai-mo. If you run 'em together, they sound like the same thing anyway. Let's practice, shall we?
"North Minneapolis is really turning around, but they'll be doing a lot better when they cut the numbers of chimos."
"Yeah, that guy seems like a harmless eccentric showing up at JACC meetings, but I read on Johnny Northside about how he's a damn chimo!"
Or how about this for practice: "I've lived in my house forty years and I have 3 granddaughters under 5 that live with me. I get notification fliers all the time of L3SO but I still don't know what houses the chimos live in."
ReplyDelete