Evensen

People v. Evensen

Good Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 917·208 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784·4 Cal. App. 5th 1020·16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 2016A145162California3,844 words

Opinion

Opinion

Humes, J.

—Defendant Richard Patrick Evensen pleaded guilty to various sex crimes after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence. The evidence leading to his arrest was obtained when police used software that targets peer-to-peer file-sharing networks to identify Internet Protocol (IP) addresses associated with known digital files of child pornography. A public website revealed one such identified IP address to be registered with Comcast, and the execution of a search warrant on Comcast showed the subscriber of the IP address to be Evensen’s mother. A second search warrant was then executed on the mother’s home, where Evensen lived, and further inculpatory evidence was found. After Evensen was arrested, more evidence of wrongdoing, some involving different victims, came to light.

Evensen argues that the trial court wrongly denied his motion to suppress because all of the evidence against him emanated from the police’s use of the software that targets peer-to-peer networks. According to him, the use of this software violated his Fourth Amendment rights by infringing on his reasonable expectation of privacy in his computer. We reject the argument and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.