Commonwealth v. Baker, 2011 Pa. Super. 131

Opinion by Stevens, J.:

The defendant was charged with possession of child-pornography, convicted, and sentenced to probation.  Just a few months later, the police received a tip that the defendant was, again, sending and receiving child-pornography over the Internet.  They obtained a warrant, and searched the house.  During the search, the police discovered pornographic images of children, and the defendant made inculpating statements.  He was tried, convicted, and appealed.

First, the defendant claimed that the warrant application contained a material, intentional, misstatement of fact, and that this should invalidate the search.  Specifically, he claimed that the Detective told the Magistrate that, based on the tip he received from AOL, defendant himself had accessed his e-mail account to send and receive child-pornography.  In fact, the report only indicated that the e-mail account had been accessed by someone.  The trial court, however, held that that this misstatement was neither material nor intentional, and the Superior Court agreed.

Next, the defendant contended that his statement to the police should have been suppressed because his detention during the search of his home was the functional equivalent of an arrest, and therefore he should have been Mirandized.   The Superior Court noted, however, that the defendant:

was told that he was not under arrest, and that he was not going to be arrested on the occasion in question, and that he was free to leave; he was not handcuffed or transported, and his interrogation was bargained for by him and not prolonged.

On this basis, the Superior Court concluded that there was no detention, the search was not the functional equivalent of an arrest, and defendant need not have been Mirandized.

Finally, the defendant challenged the imposition of a twenty-five year mandatory minimum sentence as cruel and unusual.  The Superior Court disagreed.

Read the Opinion.