State v. Linson
2017 S.D. LEXIS 62, 2017 SD 31, 896 N.W.2d 656 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person constructively possesses child pornography by affirmatively searching for, retrieving, and viewing it on a computer screen, and images found in the computer's temporary internet cache, while not contraband themselves, serve as sufficient evidence of this prior knowing possession.
Facts:
- On March 3, 2013, police were dispatched to Todd Linson's home to investigate a report of child pornography on a computer.
- Linson's wife and sister directed officers to a password-protected computer, which they could not access.
- When Linson arrived home, he provided the password to his user profile, allowing officers to examine the computer.
- Officers discovered that Linson had searched for pornography using terms such as 'preteen,' 'nude preteen photos,' and 'Lolita,' and observed websites containing child pornography in the browser history.
- A subsequent forensic analysis revealed 41 images of possible child pornography in the temporary cache files associated with Linson's user profile.
- The analysis also found an additional 360 images of child pornography in the computer's unallocated space.
- Linson initially claimed the images were from pop-ups but later admitted to an officer that he had typed some of the search terms himself.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Todd Linson on five counts of possessing child pornography.
- A jury trial was held in the state circuit court (court of first instance).
- During the trial, Linson's defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal.
- The circuit court denied the motion for a judgment of acquittal.
- The jury found Linson guilty on all five counts.
- The circuit court sentenced Linson to consecutive prison terms for each count.
- Linson (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person 'knowingly possess' child pornography under SDCL 22-24A-3(3) when images are found only in the computer's temporary internet cache, but evidence shows the person used specific search terms to actively seek out and view the images?
Opinions:
Majority - Severson, Justice
Yes. A person knowingly possesses child pornography when the evidence, including images in a computer's cache, demonstrates they affirmatively sought out and exercised control over the images by causing them to be displayed. While the mere presence of images in a cache, standing alone, is insufficient to prove knowing possession, such images serve as powerful circumstantial evidence of prior possession. The court adopts an 'evidence of' approach, where criminal liability arises not from the cached images themselves, but from the user's original actions of searching for, selecting, and displaying the contraband images on the screen. By purposefully searching for child pornography and making it appear, Linson exercised dominion and control over the images, which constitutes constructive possession. The jury could rationally infer from Linson's specific search terms, his password-protected profile, and his admission, that he consciously sought out and retrieved the images, thus knowingly possessing them.
Analysis:
This decision adapts the traditional legal concept of 'possession' to the realities of the digital age, specifically addressing how temporary internet files (cache) are treated in child pornography cases. By adopting the 'evidence of possession' approach, the court clarifies that a defendant's affirmative actions of seeking and viewing contraband are the key to establishing control and possession, not their technical knowledge of how a computer cache functions. This precedent lowers the prosecutorial burden in cases where images are not explicitly saved, focusing the legal inquiry on the user's intent and conduct rather than the technical state of the files. The ruling effectively prevents defendants from claiming they were 'merely viewing' material as a defense when they actively sought it out.
