(Super. Ct. No. 62078083)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
After his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5)*fn1 was denied, defendant Forrest Edwin Ebersold pled guilty to possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor sexual exploitation of a child (§ 311.3, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends his suppression motion was improperly denied and that several of his probation conditions are unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad. We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress, but modify defendant's probation conditions.
The relevant facts are taken from the hearing on the motion to suppress.
On February 4, 2008, Officer Brett Schneider was dispatched to investigate a report that a resident had found child pornography on a computer in his home. When Schneider arrived at the residence, he was met at the door and invited in by Matthew Hanson. Hanson explained that he and his wife, Alison Packard, had answered an advertisement seeking a roommate and had moved into the residence two days earlier. He further stated that defendant, the homeowner, had left town for a week and told Hanson, "Go ahead and make yourself at home. What's mine is yours." Defendant also told him and his wife, regarding defendant's belongings, "What's mine is yours for you to use anything."
The house had a spare bedroom, containing a desk, chair, and laptop computer. Hanson and Packard had used defendant's laptop to check their email and social networking accounts. Curious about defendant, they opened the "My Pictures" folder on the laptop. Upon doing so, they saw numerous photos of what appeared to be underage children in various disturbing states.
Hanson led Schneider to the spare bedroom and laptop computer. When Hanson moved the mouse, the screen lit up. Hanson then opened the "My Pictures" folder, which displayed numerous thumbnail photos on the screen, pointed to a few and said "this is what I saw." Without opening any further files, Schneider saw the thumbnail photos depicted multiple children between the ages of four and 17, including a photo of a four-year-old with her legs spread and vagina exposed. Schneider returned to the entryway of the house and called for a detective.
Detective Maschmayer arrived at the residence and was met at the front door by Hanson and Packard. The residents invited Maschmayer inside and led him to the computer. The screen displayed the thumbnail photos depicting pornographic images of small children. Maschmayer seized the laptop and a nearby USB drive that was in plain view on defendant's dresser. After obtaining a search warrant, Maschmayer sent the USB drive and laptop to forensics to be searched.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered on the laptop and USB drive. The trial court denied defendant's suppression motion, finding the search was a valid private search and, alternatively, that Hanson had the authority to consent to the government search.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor sexual exploitation of a child. The trial court placed defendant on probation ...