Opinion ID: 172869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Affidavit Supporting the Application for the Search Warrant

Text: The investigation of defendant began on September 8, 2006, when a woman contacted FBI Special Agent Stacie Lane to report an encounter that she said had happened about ten months earlier. [1] The witness told Agent Lane that she had begun having telephone conversations with Coen Potts through a telephone dating service in October 2005. In their telephone conversations, he had told the witness that he lived in Topeka where he was employed teaching art to very young elementary school pupils. After several telephone conversations, the witness and Mr. Potts arranged to meet in Norman, Oklahoma, probably on October 29, 2005. During this meeting, apparently the only time the two met in person, Mr. Potts brought out a large notebook and began showing photos to the witness. After he had shown her some innocuous images, Mr. Potts showed the witness three photos that she quickly realized were child pornography. The witness had described two of the photos to Agent Lane but said that she had been so shocked by these photos that she could not remember the third image. The witness said that she got the impression that Mr. Potts frequently viewed child pornography on the internet and had downloaded the images he had shown her from the internet. The witness told Agent Lane that she had only three subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Potts. The witness told Agent Lane that in each of those three conversations she had brought up Potts's interest in child pornography to find out if he was still viewing it. Potts said that he had been doing it too long to stop. In these conversations Mr. Potts said two things that upset the witness to the extent that she said that she ceased all contact with Potts. Both had to do with Mr. Potts's fantasies about having sexual contact with children. The witness said that the third and last call had occurred on November 17, 2005, after which she had no further contact with Mr. Potts until Agent Lane asked her to contact him again as part of the investigation. Afterwards, Agent Lane's affidavit recited, the witness tried to put all of this out of her mind and forget it. In September 2006, however, a friend persuaded her to call law enforcement. The witness broke down when discussing the matter, according to Agent Lane. She could not explain why she had delayed for ten months or so to report the matter, other than saying that it made her very uncomfortable to talk about it. Agent Lane's affidavit states that the witness continued to break down whenever she discussed the comments Potts made concerning child exploitation in subsequent telephone conversations. Agent Lane began a limited investigation after her telephone interview with the witness. Agent Lane established that Mr. Potts had been employed at a certain school district in the Topeka area since 2002. Contact with the school superintendent confirmed that Potts was employed as an art teacher. Agent Lane also examined public records and determined that Potts was associated with apartment # 125 on 4120 SW Twilight Drive in Topeka. Other than establishing these basic facts, the only other thing Agent Lane appears to have done to confirm the witness's account and to establish probable cause for a search of defendant's apartment was to arrange for the witness to make a recorded telephone call to defendant. The witness recorded a telephone conversation she had with Potts on October 2, 2006. We quote the district court's description of the transcript of that conversation, which quotes liberally from the transcript itself: During this telephone conversation, defendant confirmed that he still worked as an art teacher and that he owns his own computer. Three significant exchanges occurred during this recorded conversation. First, the informant raised the issue of child pornography in a discreet way. Without specifically referencing children or child pornography, the informant said that you sound like you're still into that ... the whole ... and like when we talked beforethat's what you kinda' wanted, so I don't know, I was just hoping you didn't. Defendant responded that it's not like it's 24 hours a day or anything and in fact I really, uh, don't hit any of those sites, uh, anymore than, I mean I know where they are, but I don't revisit them very often and it costs money to get on the Net, that often ... when you're downloading things that take hours to download. .... Third, defendant raised the fact that the informant wanted him to get help. The informant responded that there's help out there for people that have addictions... or like things that are not normal and I'm not saying you're not normal, but you know what I mean. Defendant said that I have admittedly... I've had a porn addiction in a way. When the informant asked [d]o you think that's what led to that?, defendant responded well no and it's just because I've been really by myself and really sort of unsuccessful with women virtually my whole life.... 559 F.Supp.2d at 1166. [2]