Opinion ID: 3157591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Prcedural History

Text: Â¶2Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In January 2014, Detective Weaver of the Douglas County Sheriffâs Office (âDCSOâ) responded to a middle schoolâs report regarding J.M., a twelve-year-old female student. School staff had begun questioning J.M. about a Facebook posting of J.M. drinking what seemed to be an alcoholic beverage. They quickly became worried there was more to the situation and contacted police. Upon his arrival, Detective Weaver spoke to J.M. but elicited no additional information. Later that day, J.M.âs mother called the DCSO to say J.M. wanted to talk. During the next two-and-a-half weeks, J.M. and her mother separately participated in a series of video-recorded interviews. Â¶3Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â J.M.âs interviews with Detective Weaver and a forensic interviewer occurred on January 21 and January 30, 2014, respectively. During these interviews, J.M. said John Swietlicki, her motherâs then-fiancÃ©, had been having regular sexual contact with her since she was approximately eight years old. The contact included vaginal touching, oral sex, and vaginal intercourse. She claimed that the most recent encounters had occurred earlier that monthâJanuary 2014âwhile J.M.âs mother was on a business trip. Â¶4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â J.M. said Swietlicki sometimes showed her pornography on his computers during these encounters. That pornography depicted âkids.â She described how Swietlicki used a âblack and gray flash driveâ to transfer pornography from his desktop computer to his laptop. Swietlicki used the laptop so that he and J.M. could view the pornography in locations other than the room off their garage, where Swietlicki kept his desktop computer. Â¶5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â During Detective Weaverâs interviews with J.M.âs mother, she corroborated various details surrounding J.M.âs allegations. For example, she acknowledged owning, and physically produced, lingerie matching the description of lingerie J.M. said Swietlicki had asked her to wear for him, and she confirmed the occurrence, travel route, and timing of a trip J.M. and Swietlicki took to California, which was one of the specific instances in which J.M. alleged abuse. Â¶6Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Although Swietlicki went into hiding shortly after the investigation began, he maintained contact with J.M.âs mother via text messages. J.M.âs mother said Swietlicki had asked her to send him photographs of the room off the garage. Swietlicki gave J.M.âs mother the password to his desktop computer located there, but she discovered the computer had been wiped clean. Â¶7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â She also disclosed that Swietlickiâs only current source of income was unemployment benefits and that his behavior during their five-year relationship suggested he had no other liquid assets to speak of. Â¶8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A consent search of the coupleâs house revealed Swietlickiâs laptop was missing.Â Â¶9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The district attorney filed sexual assault charges against Swietlicki and the court issued a nationwide warrant for his arrest. In March 2014, Deputy Jorgensonâa DCSO deputy assigned to the U.S. Marshals Task Force in Coloradoâasked Deputy Clauss, a U.S. Marshal stationed in Wisconsin, to investigate whether Swietlicki was staying with relatives in Wisconsin. Deputy Clauss conducted surveillance on multiple relativesâ addresses and decided to interview Swietlickiâs cousin, Chad Saegert, first. 1 On March 18, 2014, Clauss went to Saegertâs home and spoke with him. Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Saegert said heâd had no contact with Swietlicki for approximately two years. However, after Deputy Clauss explained the charges against Swietlicki and notified Saegert that harboring a fugitive and lying to law enforcement are crimes, Saegert revealed Swietlicki was sleeping in Saegertâs bedroom. Deputy Clauss then arrested Swietlicki and took him to a local jail. Â¶11Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â At Deputy Jorgensonâs request, Clauss returned to Saegertâs home forty-five to ninety minutes later to ask about Swietlickiâs vehicle. Saegert invited Clauss inside the house, where two other relatives were then present. Saegert pointed to a laptop sitting on a table and said the laptop was Swietlickiâs. 2 Â¶12Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Deputy Clauss immediately called Deputy Jorgenson, who in turn contacted Detective Weaver, to ask about the laptop. At Weaverâs behest, Clauss seized theÂ laptop because of J.M.âs statements concerning child pornography. Weaver and Jorgenson brought Swietlicki and the laptop to Colorado after Swietlicki was cleared for extradition. DCSO later obtained a warrant, searched the laptop, and found child pornography on it. The People brought additional charges against Swietlicki based on this discovery. Â¶13Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Swietlicki moved to suppress all evidence found on the laptop. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the police lacked probable cause to seize the laptop. The court further found both the plain view and exigent circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement inapplicable. Â¶14Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The People appeal under section 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. (2014), and C.A.R. 4.1.