State v. Roberts, 2015 UT 24 - Child Pornography and the Wyoming Toolkit

The use of the Wyoming Toolkit to identify computers with child pornography is permitted and discovery of the Toolkit cannot be compelled. The statute covering the possession of child pornography is Constitutional.

State v. Roberts, 2015 UT 24

      The defendant pleaded guilty to five charges of sexual exploitation of a minor arising from child pornography on his computer. He then appealed four of the court’s pretrial rulings.

On the first, the court ruled that the Wyoming Toolkit (database/algorithmic program to search for child pornography) did not have “the same intrusiveness as thermal imaging” and that “peer-to-peer file sharing is not entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Court used 8th Circuit case law (as well as law from the 6^th, 9^th, 10^th, and 11^th Circuits) that says “[A] defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in files… retrieved from his personal computer where [the defendant] admittedly installed and used LimeWire to make his files accessible to others for file sharing.”

Two of his appeals were regarding the admissibility of the evidence from the Toolkit. The Court ruled that he could not compel discovery of the Wyoming Toolkit database and “the search algorithm process and methodology utilized...” because it was unnecessary for the purpose alleged because the files on the computer were personally verified by law enforcement and “disclosure of investigative techniques and procedures would interfere with law enforcement efforts.”

The Court also determined that the inclusion of the evidence obtained and related to the Wyoming Toolkit was proper because the technology is readily available, it is very accurate, and is not used alone but is part of the overall decision process. The Court also determined that the expert testimony met the URE 702 threshold for admissibility.

He also appealed regarding the Constitutionality of Utah Code 76-5b-201.  The Court ruled that it is Constitutional because it is not overbroad as the classifications that it creates do not “impose any disparate treatment on persons similarly situated.” The classifications are justified by a legitimate government interest in eliminating the market for child pornography, and because the restriction is not overly burdensome. The court looked to Robinson, 2011 UT ¶ 17, 254 P.3d 183, and this case passed the Robinson requirements.