From Christensen v. Commonwealth, decided Thursday by the Kentucky Supreme Court:
After the Kenton Circuit Court denied his motion to suppress, Keram Christensen entered a conditional guilty plea to 313 counts of possessing matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, eight counts of distributing matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, one count of promoting a sexual performance by a minor (victim under 18), one count of promoting a sexual performance by a minor (victim under 16), and one count of using an electronic communications system to induce or procure a minor to commit a sexual offense. He was sentenced to seventy years' imprisonment ….
On August 20, 2019, Detective Austin Ross of the Covington Police Department received a Cyber Tipline Report from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that a user of the online dating website Match.com had recently posted information potentially expressing a sexual interest in children. In particular, the user's biography described himself as:
Quirky Bisexual Nudist. [MAP 4-10]. Seeking friends and dates, spend the evening together. I like baseball, hockey, NASCAR, basketball. Also like travel and the performing arts, or just staying in and cuddling to a good show. When I say I want kids, I mean it.
The user was identified as "Zack" from Covington, Kentucky, and the email address associated with the account was "[email protected]." Detective Ross was able to obtain the subscriber information associated with the email address and traced it to a physical address in Covington which was Christensen's residence.
The following day, Detective Ross applied for and was granted a warrant authorizing a search of Christensen's house…. The affidavit sought permission to search the residence for multiple items, including electronic devices, but did not seek authority to search the devices themselves. {Additional search warrants were subsequently issued authorizing the search of Christensen's computer and other electronic devices. No challenge has been raised relative to those warrants.}
The search came up with lots of stuff, which led to the prosecution; and the court rejected the argument that the search violated the First or Fourth Amendments. It concluded that the search was backed by probable cause:
