The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that intentionally viewing child sexual abuse material on a phone can constitute possession under a probation condition, while inadvertent caching alone is insufficient.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that clear home-surveillance video controlled over contradictory testimony and entitled Plymouth officers to qualified and common-law immunity.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Carroll lacked a personal Fourth Amendment interest in the victim’s phone and therefore could not suppress evidence based on its search. The warrants concerning his own phone and the carrier records were supported by the investigation and, in any event, were executed in objectively reasonable reliance on judicial authorization. Sworn oral testimony could supplement a facially sparse affidavit, and the record supported application of the Leon good-faith doctrine.