Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-13-03258/USCOURTS-ca3-13-03258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Joseph Kofalt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-3258

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

PATRICK JOSEPH KOFALT, 

 Appellant

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(No. 2-11-cr-00155-001)

District Judge: Honorable Nora Barry Fischer

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 23, 2014

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, Circuit Judge, and THOMPSON, District 

Judge.*

(Filed: August 26, 2016)

____________

OPINION**

____________

 

* The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge for the District of New 

Jersey, sitting by designation.

**This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant I.O.P. 5.7 does not

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 13-3258 Document: 003112391595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2016
2

THOMPSON, District Judge

Patrick Joseph Kofalt appeals the District Court’s denial of a motion to suppress 

child pornography found on his computers that was seized upon execution of a search 

warrant at his home on December 2, 2009. We will affirm for the reasons set forth by the 

District Court. 

 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). On appeal from the 

denial of a motion to suppress, this Court reviews a District Court’s factual findings for 

clear error and exercises de novo review over its application of the law to those factual 

findings. United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651, 660 (3d Cir. 2012). “A magistrate’s 

‘determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by a reviewing court.’” 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 

410, 419 (1969)). “[T]he duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the 

magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’ that probable cause existed.” Id. 

at 238. 

In denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, the District Court held, inter alia, that 

“the Affidavit supplied the magistrate with ample reasons to find [the Minor child’s] 

statements reliable and credible . . .” and that “there is sufficient evidence in the Affidavit 

to establish that [Affiant] reasonably believed that child pornography could be found at 

Defendant’s residence on his computer and other related equipment.” United States v. 

Kofalt, CRIM. 11-155, 2012 WL 5398832 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2012). The District Court 

Case: 13-3258 Document: 003112391595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2016
3

also found that “Defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the Affidavit 

contained false statements or omitted information that ‘were material, or necessary, to the 

probable cause determination’ of the magistrate judge,” so he was not entitled to a 

hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) to challenge the validity of the 

warrant. Id.

In its thorough Memorandum Opinion, the District Court clearly explained its 

reasons for denying the motion to suppress. The court’s analysis adequately and 

accurately disposed of each of the arguments Defendant raised. Accordingly, the order of 

the District Court denying the motion to suppress will be affirmed.

Case: 13-3258 Document: 003112391595 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/26/2016