## Facts

- Harold Kaupp, a vocational high school electronics instructor, worked in an office adjacent to the electronics shop.
- School technology staff discovered an unauthorized computer on the school network (“Joester”) and remotely accessed its open shared files, finding hacking tools, pirated media, and images appearing to be child pornography.
- A police officer assigned to the school alerted local police, who examined networked open shares and found additional files consistent with piracy and suspected child pornography on Joester.
- School staff identified a second unauthorized computer on the network (“Sinister”), found a pirated movie in its open share, and traced the computer to Kaupp’s office.
- Police entered Kaupp’s office and seized the Sinister computer without a warrant, intending to seek a warrant to search its contents.
- Police later obtained a warrant to search Sinister’s hard drives. The affidavit relied primarily on (1) child pornography found on Joester, (2) Sinister’s unauthorized network presence and pirated media, and (3) Kaupp’s statement that he did not “keep” child pornography on his computer but it “might have been there.”
- A forensic examination pursuant to the warrant found child pornography on Sinister, leading to Kaupp’s indictment and conviction for possession of child pornography.
- The trial court denied Kaupp’s motion to suppress; Kaupp appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless seizure of Kaupp’s computer from his school office pending a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights art. 14.
2. Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Kaupp’s private computer files for child pornography.
3. Whether the length of the forensic examination violated Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 3A or was otherwise unreasonable, requiring suppression.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order denying the motion to suppress and reversed the convictions.
- The court held the initial warrantless seizure of the computer was reasonable under the circumstances and did not require suppression.
- The court held the warrant to search Kaupp’s private computer files for child pornography lacked probable cause; the affidavit supported suspicion but not a fair probability that such images would be found in Sinister’s private files.
- The court rejected the argument that the months-long forensic examination violated § 3A where the device was seized and a return filed within the statutory period.

## Legal Principles

- Police may seize a computer without a warrant when there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime and securing the device is reasonable given the risk that digital data can be altered or deleted.
- Probable cause to search private computer files for child pornography requires facts supporting a fair probability that such contraband is stored in the particular computer’s private files; access to a network where contraband was found, or evidence of unrelated offenses (e.g., piracy), is insufficient without a stronger nexus.
- Ambiguous statements by a suspect, without corroborating facts tying the target device to the specific contraband, do not supply probable cause to search private files.
- For digital-device warrants under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, § 3A, timely execution may be satisfied by seizing the device and filing a return within the statutory period even if detailed forensic analysis continues later.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed Kaupp’s child-pornography convictions because the warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause to search his private computer files, even though the computer was lawfully seized and the warrant’s execution timing satisfied the governing statute.


Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 899 N.E.2d 809 (Mass. 2009)