Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Appeals Court Oral Arguments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel considers whether warrant allowed seizure, search of phone in child‑pornography probe
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Christopher Clayton, advocates debated whether a premises warrant allowing searches of a residence authorized seizure and search of a phone found on a person at the address and whether "all persons present" language was properly applied; the court took the matter under advisement.
A three-justice panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Christopher Clayton (Docket No. 24-P-812) over the scope of a search warrant executed in a child pornography investigation and whether officers lawfully seized and searched a cellphone found on a person at the searched residence.
Paul Boghosian, counsel for Christopher Clayton, challenged the warrant’s “any person present” provision and argued the face sheet did not check the box identifying a person to be searched; he said the warrant therefore was a premises warrant that did not authorize a direct person search. Boghosian pointed to precedent emphasizing limits on “all persons present” provisions and argued the affidavit lacked facts tying Clayton to the residence at the time of execution: “There was no information whatsoever…His car wasn’t there … his mail was not going there,” he told the panel.
Counsel for the Commonwealth responded that Molina and Martinez permit seizure and search of digital devices found within a residence when dissemination of illicit material has been traced to an IP address tied to that location. Attorney for the Commonwealth told the panel that where an IP address is linked to a specific home and devices within the home are capable of storing illicit material, officers may seize and search those devices even if the particular device is later shown to belong to a specific person.
Justices asked whether Molina/Martinez—cases allowing broad device searches in premises warrants—conflict with a line of “all persons present” cases requiring probable cause particularized to persons to be searched. The Commonwealth argued the two lines of cases can be reconciled because Molina and Martinez focus on devices and the need to seize devices capable of storing contraband; the defense argued that seizing a phone from the person was materially different and raised distinct Fourth Amendment concerns.
Boghosian also raised a minimization protocol argument, citing Molina’s recognition that digital searches require protections, and argued the warrant authorized an unfettered search of a cellular telephone without reasonable temporal limits.
After extended questioning, the panel took the matter under advisement. The court did not issue a ruling from the bench.
