Court Opinion

ID: 9940840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 16:06:55.897691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:54.140904
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 15, 2024
                                                        TO BE PUBLISHED

               Supreme Court of Kentucky
                               2023-SC-0237-MR

BENNETT D. COUCH                                                    APPELLANT

                 ON APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
V.                HONORABLE MARY K. MOLLOY, JUDGE
                            NO. 21-CR-01440

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY                                             APPELLEE

         OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE VANMETER

                                     AFFIRMING

      This criminal case arises from the Kenton Circuit Court’s conviction of

Bennett D. Couch due to her possession and transfer of child pornography in

violation of KRS 1 531.335 and 531.340. Couch raises two primary issues: (i)

the constitutionality of KRS 531.330’s presumption as to minority; and (ii) the

trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress the search of her apartment.

Finding no merit to Couch’s arguments, we affirm.

                  I.    Factual and Procedural Background

      In July 2021, Detective Brian Jones with the Kenton County Police

Department received a CyberTipline Report from the National Center for

      1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that three pornographic images of

children were being circulated online. Two different district court judges

approved search warrants in this case, permitting law enforcement to search

the following for evidence of crimes associated with the possession or

distribution of child pornography: (1) Couch’s Tumblr account; (2) her

apartment; (3) her cell phones; and (4) her computers and other electronic-

storage devices located in the apartment. The police executed the search

warrants.

      The CyberTipline Report originated from Tumblr, a blogging social media

website, reporting three pornographic images of children had been uploaded to

a specific Tumblr account with the username “onlynastieconfessions.” The

initial search warrant was directed at Tumblr to uncover additional information

about this account. 2 The username was associated with Couch’s email

address. The CyberTipline Report also provided the IP address from which the

child pornography was uploaded to Tumblr; it was geolocated to Fort Mitchell

in Kenton County. Upon further investigation, Det. Jones was able to identify

Couch as the subscriber for that particular IP address and resident at the

location associated with the IP address.

      Det. Jones recognized the three images as having a watermark

reading “LS Studios.” LS Studios is or was a Ukrainian company that

historically created and sold online hundreds of thousands of child

      2 Couch presents no argument as to the validity of this initial search warrant.

                                          2
pornography files. In each of the affidavits for the search warrants, Det. Jones

affirmed that he had viewed the images and that they “depict[ed] a sexual

performance by a minor. All three (3) of the images depict prepubescent female

minors.”

      On August 23, 2021, Det. Jones executed the next Application and

Affidavit in Support of a Search Warrant. In that affidavit, he identified the

premises at 275 Battery Court, Apartment 6, Fort Mitchell, in Kenton County,

described the building and the location of Apartment 6, including two pictures

of the building and the door. He then described the property sought:

            Images and/or videos depicting sexual conduct/performance
      by a minor (as defined by KRS 531.300).
             Computers, data drives, hard drives, floppy disks, optical
      disks, tape disks, memory cards, USB “thumb” drives and/or any
      other internal or external storage devices capable of storing digital
      pictures or videos. Any monitors and/or peripheral equipment
      such as printers, digital scanning equipment, modems, routers,
      and connecting cables. Any computer software programs capable
      of storing or displaying digital pictures or videos.
            If the computers or other digital devices are found in a
      running state, the investigator may acquire evidence from the
      devices prior to shutting the devices off, including by means of
      preview software, to preserve volatile evidence.
             Any documentation and/or notations referring to the
      computer system, the contents of the computer, the use of the
      computer or any computer software and/or communications and
      all information within the above listed items including but not
      limited to machine readable data and all previously erased data as
      it relates to images and/or videos depicting sexual
      conduct/performance by minors.
      which property Affiant believes to be:
              (   ) stolen
              ( X ) property or things used as the means of committing a
      crime

                                        3
      ( X ) property or things in possession of a person who has
intention to use it as means of committing a crime or in the
possession of another to whom any person may have delivered it
for purpose of concealing it or preventing its being discovered.
      ( X ) things which consist of evidence which tends to show
that a crime has been committed or that a particular person has
committed a crime.
      ( X ) contraband
       AFFIANT STATES THAT on or about July 29, 2021, the
Affiant received a CyberTipline Report, Report 94392802, from the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Center
receives tips from internet service providers which have identified
activity involving child pornography and other internet crimes
against children. The report originated from Tumblr, Inc., and
involves pornographic images and/or videos of children being
uploaded.
       The Report provides that three (3) images of child
pornography were uploaded to the above-described Tumblr
account from the IP address 74.132.229.2. The Report contains
an incident date of July 3, 2021 at 21:57:17 UTC. Affiant has
viewed the three (3) images associated with the Report and can
confirm that they contain matter which depict a sexual
performance by a minor. All three (3) of the images depict
prepubescent female minors. One of the photos contains a
watermark that reads “LS-Magazine.” Based on training and
experience, Affiant knows that LS Studios was a Ukrainian online
subscription service and photography studio, which existed
between 2001-2004, that created hundreds of thousands of
images, and hundreds of videos, of young teen and prepubescent
girls and sold such on the internet. During that time, the company
created approximately 80 issues or collections, the title of each
beginning with the company initials.
      The Report further identified the user of the Tumblr account
as having the email address becouch11@gmail.com. Affiant
confirmed through Tumblr that the reported account with email
address becouch1l@gmail.com was created on July 1, 2021.
      The IP address 74.132.229.2 geo-locates to Fort Mitchell,
Kenton County, Kentucky. Charter Communications confirmed
that the IP address 74.132.229.2 has been leased to Bennett
Couch at the above-described address 275 Battery Court,
Apartment 6, in Fort Mitchell, Kenton County, Kentucky,
beginning on July 15, 2020, up to and including July 29, 2021.

                                 4
      The e-mail address associated with the Charter Communications
      account is bdcouch111@gmail.com.
             Affiant met with management of the apartment complex who
      confirmed that Bennett Couch is the sole resident of the above-
      described apartment. Affiant reviewed the KY OL record, including
      the OL photo, of Bennett Couch. On or about August 17, 2021,
      Affiant traveled to the above-described residence and observed a
      person recognized as Couch exit the building and enter a vehicle
      registered to Bennett Couch.
             Based upon all of the above, the Affiant, in his capacity as a
      police officer requests that the search warrant be issued to search
      the above-described residence at 275 Battery Court, Apartment 6,
      Kenton County, Kentucky, in order to further the Affiant's
      continuing investigation.

The affidavit was signed by Det. Jones and his signature notarized.

      In executing the search warrant, police secured the following electronic

devices: two iPhones, three laptop computers, three thumb drives and two

DVDs with titles suggestive of pornographic content: “Barely Legal” and “Red

Hot Lovers.” Presumably out of an abundance of caution, on September 8, Det.

Jones prepared and presented two more Applications and Affidavits in Support

of a Search Warrant in order to have Couch’s electronic devices searched.

Those search warrants were approved.

      The search warrants for Couch’s electronic devices did not reveal any

pornographic images of children. Det. Jones did uncover, however, images on

Couch’s iPhone of a dog performing oral sex on Couch. According to a later

search warrant affidavit for Couch’s Snapchat account, Det. Jones located in

Couch’s “Snapchat account four (4) unique images depicting . . . the dog licking

what appears to be whipped cream from [her] vagina.”

                                        5
      Couch was indicted by a Kenton County Grand Jury on three counts of

possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, three counts

of distribution of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, and one

count of sexual crimes against an animal.

      Couch filed a motion to suppress evidence collected pursuant to the

search warrants but later withdrew the motion. Several months later, Couch

re-filed her suppression motion and raised the same arguments but also

asserted that the rebuttable-presumption language in KRS 531.330 and KRS

531.340 is unconstitutional. The record does not show that Couch provided

the Attorney General with the required notice under KRS 418.075. The trial

court denied the suppression motion, entering the following Order:

            This matter is before the Court on the Motion of the
      Defendant, Bennett D. Couch, to suppress all physical and
      testimonial evidence seized during the execution of multiple search
      warrants. The Defendant first challenges an Application and
      Affidavit in Support of a search warrant for the Defendant’s
      residence. The second Application and Affidavit was for a warrant
      for two phones which had been seized from the Defendant’s
      residence. The third Application and Affidavit was for three
      laptops, three thumb drives and two DVDs, which had also been
      seized from the Defendant’s residence.
             It is the Defendant's position that the applications and the
      affidavits in support did not provide probable cause for the
      issuance of the search warrants. The Defendant alleges that the
      Applications and the Affidavits in support of the warrants failed to
      mention any information regarding the reliability of the National
      Center for Missing and Exploited Children and/or Tumblr.
      Furthermore, the Defendant argues that the Applications and
      Affidavits fail to make a complete connection between LS-Magazine
      and that the picture with the LS watermark is pornographic in
      nature. In addition, the Defendant claims that the Applications
      and Affidavits in support of the warrants failed to allege criminal
      activity, except for in one instance where the affiant stated that he
      believe[s] “that evidence of violations of KRS 510, including but not

                                        6
limited to, Internet history and chat remnants still exists on the
computer belonging to the suspect.” The Defendant also contends
that the Applications and Affidavits failed to establish a nexus
between the crimes alleged and/or suspected to have been violated
and the Defendant's residence.
       Neither party in this matter requested a hearing be held on
this Motion to Suppress. A review of the record herein, including
the applications and affidavits for the various warrants discloses
that on or about July 29, 2021, Detective Brian Jones of the
Kenton County Police Department received a Cyber Tipline Report
94392802 from the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. That Report originated from Tumblr, Inc. and involved
pornographic images and/or videos of children being uploaded to
the internet, or in other words, the possession and distribution of
matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor. The Report
provided that three images of child pornography were uploaded to
a specific Tumblr account which was associated with the email
address, becouch11@gmail com. An initial search warrant for the
specific Tumblr account was authorized by District Judge
Grothaus on July 30, 2021. The Defendant does not seem to take
issue with this warrant, nor does he [sic] seek to preclude evidence
gained through this warrant. The Affidavit in support of that
warrant established that Det. Jones had viewed the images
associated with the Report and confirmed that they depicted
pornographic material. One of the photos contained a watermark
which Jones recognized as identifying a photo which was part of
LS-Magazine which he recognized as a collection of child
pornography produced by LS Studios which created and sold
online files of child pornography. The IP address to which these
images were uploaded was connected to criminal activity in Kenton
County which was located to Fort Mitchell and specifically to a
residence address which was that of the Defendant. To confirm the
address of the Defendant was correct, Det. Jones also conducted
surveillance. That initial warrant authorized a search of that
residence and specifically sought images and videos depicting
sexual conduct/performance by a minor as defined by KRS
531.300, as well as any type of computer or device which could
store digital pictures or videos.
      After execution of the initial warrant, two additional
warrants to which the Defendant now objects as lacking probable
cause, were authorized by District Judge Easterling. One warrant
was for two cell phones which had been located in the residence,
while the other warrant was for computers and electronic storage
devices, namely thumb drives which had also been located in the
residence. The affidavits in support of these warrants contained

                                 7
      the same facts as those previously contained in the Tumblr search
      warrant. In addition, these affidavits also reported that the
      Defendant had admitted ownership of the Tumblr account
      identified in the Report and the email address associated with the
      account and admitted to sharing on the account the three
      pornographic images which had been downloaded. In other words,
      the Defendant had also confessed to the criminal activity reported
      by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
             The Defendant makes no assertions that the affidavits in
      support of the warrants contained false statements or omitted
      material facts. Upon consideration of the statements in the
      supporting documentation for the affidavits, there can be no doubt
      that the totality of the circumstances provided a substantial basis
      for the judges who reviewed this information to conclude that
      probable cause existed for the issuance of these warrants. Great
      deference should be given to the warrant-issuing judge, and their
      decision should not be reversed unless arbitrarily exercised.
      Commonwealth v. Pride, 302 S. W.3d 43, 49 (Ky. 2010); Moore v.
      Commonwealth, 159 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Ky. 2005). There is no
      evidence to suggest that the reviewing judges acted arbitrarily in
      the issuance of these warrants. Probable cause does not require
      certainty that a crime was committed or that evidence will be
      present in a place to be searched. Moore, supra, at329
            THEREFORE, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress the
      evidence obtained through the search warrants issued herein, be
      and is hereby DENIED.

The court did not rule on the constitutionality of KRS 531.330 or KRS 531.340.

      Following denial of the suppression motion, Couch entered a conditional

guilty plea, as to which the Commonwealth made no plea offer. Couch’s trial

counsel stated on the record that Couch planned to enter a conditional guilty

plea preserving her right to appeal two claims: the constitutionality of the

presumption-of-minority language in KRS 531.330 and KRS 531.340 and the

order denying the motion to suppress.

      At sentencing, the trial court found Couch guilty of all seven felony

charges and sentenced her to 20 years’ imprisonment. The court also imposed

                                        8
lifetime registration as a sex offender. Couch now appeals as a matter of

right. 3

                              II.    Standard of Review

       As Couch raises distinct issues as a result of her conditional guilty plea,

we apply distinct standards of review. As to the constitutional validity of a

statute, typically those challenges are matters of law, which we review de novo.

Teco/Perry Cnty. Coal v. Feltner, 582 S.W.3d 42, 45 (Ky. 2019)

       As to standards to be applied in reviewing the sufficiency of search

warrants, we have stated “the trial court judge faced with a motion to suppress

evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant should apply the Gates[4]

standard[.]” Commonwealth v. Pride, 302 S.W.3d 43, 49 (Ky. 2010). This

determination is “whether under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ presented

within the four corners of the affidavit, a warrant-issuing judge had a

substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Id.

       On appellate review, we first determine whether the facts found by the

trial judge are supported by substantial evidence. Id. Our second task is to

“determine whether the trial judge correctly determined that the issuing judge

did or did not have a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’ that probable

cause existed.” Id. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 236); see also Beemer v.

Commonwealth, 665 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Ky. 1984) (applying the “substantial

basis” test to the decision of the warrant-issuing judge to determine if probable

       3 KY. CONST. § 110(2)(b).

       4 Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983).

                                            9
cause existed). In Pride, we cautioned that reviewing courts are to give “great

deference” to the warrant-issuing judge. 302 S.W.3d at 49 (citing Gates, 462

U.S. at 236). Furthermore, probable cause is determined from the four corners

of the affidavit, without regard to any extrinsic evidence. Id.

                                  III.   Analysis

      A. Constitutional Challenge to KRS 531.330 and 531.340.

      Couch argues that KRS 531.330 and 531.340 are unconstitutional under

Kentucky Constitution sections 28 and 124. As pointed out by the

Commonwealth, however, Couch failed to notify the Attorney General of her

constitutional challenge as required by KRS 418.075. See also CR 5 24.03

(providing “[w]hen the constitutionality of an act of the General Assembly

affecting the public interest is drawn into question in any action, the movant

shall serve a copy of the pleading, motion or other paper first raising the

challenge upon the Attorney General[]”). This Court has made clear that “strict

compliance with the notification provisions of KRS 418.075 is mandatory[.]”

Benet v. Commonwealth, 253 S.W.3d 528, 532 (Ky. 2008). Our courts refuse to

address arguments that a statute is unconstitutional unless these notice

provisions are fully satisfied. Id.

      This rule applies equally in criminal cases as well as civil ones. Id. And

good reason exists for the rule. Kentucky does not have a unified prosecutorial

system, and although there is a relationship between the Attorney General and

      5 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                         10
local prosecuting officials, Commonwealth’s Attorneys do not answer to the

Attorney General. See generally KRS 15.220 and 15.725. The Attorney

General, who is elected statewide by the Commonwealth’s voters and not just

by local citizens, “is in a unique position to defend the constitutionality of an

act of the General Assembly. The Attorney General must be given this

opportunity at the trial level because a declaration regarding the

constitutionality of a statute affects all the citizens of the Commonwealth[.]”

Benet, 253 S.W.3d at 532 n.13; see Brashars v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 58,

65–66 (Ky. 2000) (rejecting argument that notice to the Attorney General

regarding constitutionality of a statute was not required because the

Commonwealth was already a party to the criminal action); Jacobs v.

Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Ky. App. 1997) (stating “[w]e recognize

that in criminal cases such as this the Commonwealth is represented at the

trial level by local prosecuting officials. . . . For that reason, we conclude that

the notice requirements of [KRS 418.075] must be met in criminal, as well as

civil, actions[]”).

       As noted, Couch failed to provide the required notice to the Attorney

General. Accordingly, we decline to address her constitutional challenge to

KRS 531.330 and 531.340.

       B. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Denying Couch’s Motion to
          Suppress.

       Couch’s argument concerning the sufficiency of the search warrant

affidavits involve three claims: (i) the affidavits lacked probable cause due to

Det. Jones’ failure to specify his training and experience connecting LS-
                                         11
Magazine and LS Studios as child pornography sources, the purported sources

of the images; (ii) the affidavits either failed to identify or incorrectly identified

the criminal activity at issue; and (iii) the affidavits failed to establish any

nexus between the criminal activity and Couch’s residence. All three claims

are meritless.

      As to the first claim, lack of probable cause for failing to identify Det.

Jones’ experience and knowledge concerning the purported images source, LS-

Magazine and LS Studios, Couch fails to account for Det. Jones’ sworn

statements, as found by the trial court, that the three images were uploaded to

Tumblr from an IP address connected to Couch’s leased premises, that Det.

Jones had viewed the images, and that all three portrayed sexual performance

by prepubescent female minors. The ultimate source of the images is

immaterial since the statutes in question criminalize possession or viewing of

matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor, KRS 531.335, and

distribution of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor. KRS

531.340.

      In Rawls v. Commonwealth, 434 S.W.3d 48, 58 (Ky. 2014), we stated

“[p]robable cause is judged to exist under a ‘totality of the circumstances,’

Moore v. Commonwealth, 159 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Ky. 2005), and can be found

where the facts presented in the affidavit demonstrate ‘a fair probability that

contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’” We

have little difficulty in concluding that the trial court correctly determined that

                                          12
the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause

existed to issue the original search warrant.

      Couch next claims that the search warrant affidavits did not correctly

identify the criminal statutes that were violated, and at one point incorrectly

identified KRS Chapter 510. As a factual matter, Couch’s assertion is incorrect

since the August 23, 2021, affidavit referred to “[i]mages and/or videos

depicting sexual conduct/performance by a minor (as defined by KRS

531.300).” Be that as it may, our case law does not impose an obligation of the

attesting officer to precisely identify the section of the Kentucky Revised

Statutes violated.

      The requirement for a valid search warrant affidavit is as set forth in

Gates. In Minks v. Commonwealth, 427 S.W.3d 802, 809 (Ky. 2014) we stated

“[u]nder the Gates test, the warrant-issuing judge is not required to attest to

the validity of the information provided in the warrant, but rather ‘to make a

practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth

in the affidavit before him, . . . a fair probability [exists] that contraband or

evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’” Id. at 808 (emphasis

added) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238). The question raised by a search

warrant affidavit is whether it states sufficient facts to give rise to probable

cause. See Minks, 427 S.W.3d at 810 (stating “the duty of the judicial officer

[is] to issue or deny the warrant based solely on the facts contained within

the four corners of the affidavit[]”) (quoting Crayton v. Commonwealth, 846

                                          13
S.W.2d 684, 689 (Ky. 1992)). No requirement exists that specific statutory

provisions be identified.

      While the Supreme Court has established a procedure for evaluating

material factual misstatements in affidavits, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,

155–56 (1978), this procedure has not been extended to misstatements of law.

United States v. Barnes, 126 F. Supp. 3d 735, 740-41 (E.D. La. 2015). As

noted by the court in Barnes, the reasons for this are that typically affidavits

for search warrants are drafted by a non-lawyer in the midst of a criminal

investigation, and the officer’s “sole responsibility is to attest to facts within his

or her personal knowledge.” Id. at 741. “The determination of whether those

facts support a finding of probable cause is committed exclusively to the

magistrate judge, who is ‘presumed to know the law and to apply it in making

[his or her] decision.’” Id. (footnotes omitted) (quoting Lambrix v. Singletary,

520 U.S. 518, 532 n.4 (1997)).

      Couch’s third claim is that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish

a nexus between the criminal activity and her apartment. Couch, however,

ignores that the IP address identified in the investigation was tied to her

apartment. As succinctly held by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,

             We have also addressed the Fourth Amendment's nexus
      requirement as applied to the digital age. Probable cause to believe
      a person committed a crime does not justify a search of his or her
      residence absent some independent evidence linking the residence
      to the crime. See United States v. Savoca, 761 F.2d 292, 297 (6th
      Cir. 1985). However, we have held that a nexus exists when law
      enforcement connects the IP address used to access a website to
      the physical location identified by the warrant. [United States v.]
      Elbe, 774 F.3d [885,] 890 [(6th Cir. 2014)]; [United States v.]

                                         14
      Kinison, 710 F.3d [678,] 683–84 [(6th Cir. 2013)]. Pointing to our
      “prior observations” that child pornography is typically possessed
      in the secrecy of the home, the Kinison panel reasoned that a
      search of the home was a perfectly logical next step for officers who
      have only circumstantial evidence of where the crime was
      committed and no “inside scoop” on which they could rely. 710
      F.3d at 683–84.
United States v. Tagg, 886 F.3d 579, 587 (6th Cir. 2018).

     The trial court correctly denied Couch’s motion to suppress.

      C. Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct at Sentencing

      Couch next claims that at the sentencing hearing the Commonwealth

improperly stated that Couch did not accept responsibility for her actions when

the Commonwealth informed the trial court that it took Couch 30 minutes

before she confessed to the interviewing officers.

      Couch provides no information as to where in the record this statement

was made, or how Couch’s objection was preserved. RAP 6 32(A)(4). While the

Commonwealth’s brief provides some of this information, the obligation to

provide this information belongs to the party submitting the brief. Couch also

does not request palpable error review. Couch has waived appellate review of

this issue.

      D. Alleged Failure of Trial Court to Properly Consider Presentence
         Investigation Report.

      Couch finally claims that the trial court failed to properly consider the

Presentence Investigation Report submitted by the Division of Probation and

Parole.

      6 Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                        15
         Like Couch’s argument concerning alleged prosecutorial misconduct,

Couch provides no information as to where in the record this statement was

made, or how Couch’s objection was preserved. RAP 32(A)(4). Couch also does

not request palpable error review. Couch has waived appellate review of this

issue.

                                 IV.   Conclusion

         For the foregoing reasons, the Kenton Circuit Court’s judgment is

affirmed.

         All sitting. Bisig, Conley, Keller, Lambert, and Nickell, JJ., concur.

Thompson, J., concurs in result only.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Mark C. Eppley
Eppley Legal Group

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:

Russell M. Coleman
Attorney General of Kentucky

Rachel A. Wright
Assistant Solicitor General

                                          16