Appeal from the District Court of Albany County The Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] Beau Lefferdink challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress after he was charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of children. We affirm.
[¶2] Lefferdink raises three issues before this Court:
1. Should the misstatement of fact in the affidavit for a search warrant be stricken as knowingly and intentionally made or in reckless disregard for the truth?
2. Was [Lefferdink]'s right to confrontation and due process violated for a failure to disclose exculpatory evidence?
3. If stricken, does probable cause for the search of a computer IP address or residence exist within the four corners of the affidavit?
[¶3] In the spring of 2009, Albany County Sheriff's Deputy Chris Konija was involved in an undercover operation to monitor LimeWire*fn1 in an attempt to identify Albany County internet users who were downloading and sharing child pornography.
[¶4] Lefferdink's computer IP address showed that it was downloading child pornography, and Deputy Konija began to monitor that address. A search warrant was obtained for Bresnan Communications to identify the user of the IP address. Lefferdink was identified as the owner of the computer that downloaded the illegal material and, consequently, a search warrant was obtained for Lefferdink's address. Lefferdink's desktop computer and laptop computer were both seized. Thereafter, Lefferdink was charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of children in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-4-303(b)(iv) and 6-4-303(b)(iii) (LexisNexis 2009).
[¶5] On January 12, 2010, Lefferdink filed a motion to suppress evidence, based upon the contention that Deputy Konija knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, lied in his affidavits. Also on January 12, Lefferdink filed a motion requesting that the court issue a subpoena duces tecum to the Division of Criminal Investigation requiring the production of all notes, documents, and reports created during its forensic investigation of Lefferdink's computers. The district court granted the motion requesting the subpoena duces tecum. However, a motion to quash was filed, because the subpoena directed the information to be produced to Lefferdink, and not the court, in violation of W.R.Cr.P. 17(d) and Wolfe v. State, 998 P.2d 385, 387 (Wyo. 2000). The court granted the motion to quash because the subpoena was not in compliance, but encouraged the issuance of another subpoena in compliance with the law. However, another subpoena was never issued.
[¶6] On February 10, 2010, both parties stipulated that the deputy did misstate the time and date in both affidavits of when he first saw Lefferdink's IP address. The court still denied the motion to suppress, however, and found that the misstated time and date was at most a simple mistake. The court ruled that even if the time and date were omitted ...