## Facts

- Andrew Hayden, a Quinnipiac University student, complained in fall 2004 that someone was improperly using his university email account.
- The interference with Hayden’s email account continued into the spring of 2005.
- In June 2005, Charles Griffen, the university’s information security officer, reviewed university email logs and determined that Hayden’s account had been accessed from an off-campus internet protocol (IP) address.
- Griffen believed the IP address was associated with Charter Communications, an internet service provider.
- Griffen reported his findings to local police.
- Police applied for and obtained a warrant, supported by Griffen’s affidavit, directing Charter Communications to produce subscriber information associated with the identified IP address.
- Charter responded that the subscriber for that IP address was Perry Forgione.
- Only after Charter identified Perry Forgione as the subscriber, Hayden told Griffen that his ex-girlfriend was Meghan Forgione and that she lived at the same address as her father, Perry Forgione.
- Police then sought and obtained a second warrant, again supported by Griffen’s affidavit (now including Hayden’s statement about Meghan and the residence), to search the Forgione home for computers and related equipment.
- Officers executed the residential warrant and seized computers and other computer equipment from the Forgione residence.
- Meghan, Denise, and Perry Forgione petitioned for return of the seized property and asked the court to suppress any evidence derived from the seizure in any future criminal proceeding.

## Issues

1. Whether the affidavit supporting the residential search warrant failed to establish probable cause because it included unreliable “double hearsay” (Hayden’s statements conveyed through Griffen).
2. Whether the residential warrant lacked a sufficient connection between the alleged unauthorized email access and the Forgione home and/or the computer equipment to be seized.
3. Whether the Forgiones had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the IP-address/subscriber information held by the ISP such that obtaining it was an unlawful search that tainted the later residential warrant.
4. Whether the Forgiones were entitled to return of the seized computers and equipment and suppression of the evidence.

## Decision

- The court denied the Forgiones’ motion for return of property and suppression of evidence.
- The court concluded that the magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause for the residential search under the totality of the circumstances, notwithstanding the petitioners’ hearsay objections.
- The court found that the log evidence tying the unauthorized access to a specific IP address, the ISP’s identification of the subscriber at the relevant address, and the additional information linking a resident (Meghan) to the complainant supported a reasonable inference that evidence would be found in the home.
- The court rejected the claim that the Forgiones had a protected privacy interest in the ISP-held IP-address/subscriber information that would bar law enforcement from obtaining it by warrant or require suppression.
- Because the warrants and seizure were upheld, the court declined to order return of the property on the Fourth Amendment theory advanced.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause may be based on hearsay when the issuing judge can reasonably credit the information under the totality-of-the-circumstances approach.
- A search warrant must establish a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found at the place to be searched; in computer-related investigations, technical logs and IP-address attribution may support an inference that relevant devices are located at the subscriber’s address.
- ISP subscriber-identifying information maintained as a provider business record generally is not treated as information in which a subscriber has a reasonable expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes, particularly when sought through lawful process.
- Suppression and return of property are not warranted where the challenged warrants are supported by probable cause and do not violate constitutional search-and-seizure protections.

## Conclusion

In *In Re Property of Forgione*, the Connecticut Superior Court upheld warrants used first to obtain subscriber information for an IP address linked to unauthorized access of a university email account and then to search the identified subscriber’s home for computers and related equipment; the court rejected challenges based on alleged double hearsay, lack of connection between the alleged conduct and the residence, and an asserted privacy interest in IP-address/subscriber records, and it denied the petitioners’ request to suppress evidence and require return of the seized devices.


In Re Property of Forgione, 908 A.2d 593, 49 Conn. Supp. 613 (2006)