Commonwealth v. Kaupp
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
899 N.E.2d 809 (2009)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Harold Kaupp (defendant) was an instructor in the electronics shop of a high school. School administrators learned that several unauthorized computers were connected to the high school’s computer network. Open-share files on the computers contained hacking tools, games, and pirated movies. The police joined in the search to find the unauthorized computers. On the open share of a computer later determined to belong to a student, a detective found a copy of Spiderman, which had just been released in theaters, and a motion-picture file titled “Beautiful Lolita Sandra Masturbates.” The high school’s network manager observed a copy of Spiderman on the open share of an unauthorized computer named “Sinister” and found Sinister in Kaupp’s office next to the electronics shop. The detective seized the computer based on probable cause to believe that it contained pirated movies and obtained a warrant to search its contents. A subsequent search of the hard drives revealed child pornography. Kaupp was charged with and convicted of possession of child pornography. Kaupp argued on appeal that the initial warrantless search of his computer was unlawful and the court should have granted his motion to suppress child pornography found on the computer.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.