J-A15014-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TROY ALLAN LAWSON : : Appellant : No. 1403 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 25, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000899-2022
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 23, 2024
Troy Lawson (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence of
25-50 years’ incarceration after a jury found him guilty of 189 counts of Sexual
Abuse of Children -- Child Pornography.1 He challenges the denial of his Motion
to Suppress, asserting that the search warrant was not supported by probable
cause. After careful review, we affirm.
A.
We glean the following relevant background from the certified record.
On December 6, 2021, Appellant’s 14-year-old daughter (“A.L.”) and her
mother, Tammy Lawson, reported to the Williamsport Bureau of Police that
A.L. had found suspicious material on Appellant’s cell phone two days earlier.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d). J-A15014-24
Specifically, A.L. told Officer Damon Cole that she had gone to Panda Express
to meet Appellant, her father. While there, A.L. asked to borrow Appellant’s
phone, which he allowed. She discovered that the phone contained a photo of
a 12- or 13-year-old girl crawling in a bikini, and internet browsing history
that included searches such as “hot teen boys blowjob,” “young boys with big
dicks do it in threesome” and “boysexlube.tv/watch/1219.” She told Officer
Cole that she took screen shots of Appellant’s phone showing the photo and
the internet browsing history and showed them to him.
Based on this report, Officer Cole drafted an affidavit of probable cause,
citing the photo provided by Appellant’s daughter and the screen shot of
Appellant’s browser history, and applied for a warrant to search Appellant and
seize his cell phone in order to seize “data showing internet searches for child
pornography, imagines or videos that meet the definition of child
pornography.” Application for Search Warrant and Authorization, dated
12/6/21, at Attachment A. The Lycoming County Court granted the application
on December 6, 2021 (“Initial Search Warrant”).
On March 30, 2022, Officer Cole filed a second application to search
Appellant’s phone for any electronic information related to Appellant’s
obtaining child pornography. The affidavit of probable cause contained the
same information that was in the previous affidavit of probable cause, in
addition to Appellant’s statement that he had ”pictures” of teenage girls in
bikinis on his cellphone and that he had “nothing to hide.” The court granted
the second application (“Second Search Warrant”). Officer Cole executed the
-2- J-A15014-24
warrant on April 4, 2022, and recovered 400 images of pre-pubescent female
children, including photos of them nude, in their underwear, and posing
provocatively. On May 27, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with
189 counts of Sexual Abuse of Children – Child Pornography.2
On March 7, 2023, Appellant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion to
Suppress, claiming that the search warrants were not supported by probable
cause. Two days later, the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
Appellant proceeded to trial and on March 17, 2023, a jury found him
guilty of all 189 counts of Sexual Abuse of Children – Child Pornography. On
July 25, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of 50-100 years’
incarceration, comprised of 25-50 years’ incarceration for each of the 189
counts, with the sentences on the first two counts to run consecutively to one
another and the remaining counts to run concurrently. However, Appellant
filed a Post Sentence Motion to Modify the Sentence, which the court granted,
imposing the same sentences for each count and directing they each run
concurrent to the first count, thus limiting the aggregate sentence to 25-50
years’ incarceration.
2 “Any person who intentionally views or knowingly possesses or controls any
book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act commits an offense.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).
-3- J-A15014-24
Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement. The trial court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion
concluding that probable cause supported both search warrants.
B.
Appellant presents the following issue for this Court’s review:
Did the [t]rial court err in denying the Appellant’s Pre-Trial Omnibus Motion Nunc Pro Tunc to suppress evidence obtained by search warrants dated December 6, 2021, and March 30, 2022?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
C. Our review of “a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is
limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those
facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010).
This Court is “bound by the factual findings of the suppression court,” but we
are not bound by its legal conclusions, which we review de novo.
Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 320-21 (Pa. 2011). We may only
review “the evidence presented at the suppression hearing when examining a
ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress.” Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208
A.3d 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
“Probable cause exists where, based upon a totality of the circumstances
set forth in the affidavit of probable cause, including the reliability and veracity
of hearsay statements included therein, there is a fair probability that . . .
-4- J-A15014-24
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Commonwealth v.
Fletcher, 307 A.3d 742, 746 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). “The task
of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense
decision . . .. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the
magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921, 925 (Pa. 1985) (internal quotation
marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
213, 238-39(1983)).
D.
Here, Appellant contends that the Initial Search Warrant was not
supported by probable cause because the content discovered by his daughter
was not illegal. Appellant’s Br. at 15. Specifically, he contends that because
photos of young girls in bikinis are common in advertising, one photo of a pre-
pubescent girl in a bikini is not indicative of child pornography. Id. Appellant
also argues that the phrases contained in the browser history photographed
by his daughter “are not illegal on their face” and “one would have to use
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A15014-24
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TROY ALLAN LAWSON : : Appellant : No. 1403 MDA 2023
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered July 25, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000899-2022
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JULY 23, 2024
Troy Lawson (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of sentence of
25-50 years’ incarceration after a jury found him guilty of 189 counts of Sexual
Abuse of Children -- Child Pornography.1 He challenges the denial of his Motion
to Suppress, asserting that the search warrant was not supported by probable
cause. After careful review, we affirm.
A.
We glean the following relevant background from the certified record.
On December 6, 2021, Appellant’s 14-year-old daughter (“A.L.”) and her
mother, Tammy Lawson, reported to the Williamsport Bureau of Police that
A.L. had found suspicious material on Appellant’s cell phone two days earlier.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d). J-A15014-24
Specifically, A.L. told Officer Damon Cole that she had gone to Panda Express
to meet Appellant, her father. While there, A.L. asked to borrow Appellant’s
phone, which he allowed. She discovered that the phone contained a photo of
a 12- or 13-year-old girl crawling in a bikini, and internet browsing history
that included searches such as “hot teen boys blowjob,” “young boys with big
dicks do it in threesome” and “boysexlube.tv/watch/1219.” She told Officer
Cole that she took screen shots of Appellant’s phone showing the photo and
the internet browsing history and showed them to him.
Based on this report, Officer Cole drafted an affidavit of probable cause,
citing the photo provided by Appellant’s daughter and the screen shot of
Appellant’s browser history, and applied for a warrant to search Appellant and
seize his cell phone in order to seize “data showing internet searches for child
pornography, imagines or videos that meet the definition of child
pornography.” Application for Search Warrant and Authorization, dated
12/6/21, at Attachment A. The Lycoming County Court granted the application
on December 6, 2021 (“Initial Search Warrant”).
On March 30, 2022, Officer Cole filed a second application to search
Appellant’s phone for any electronic information related to Appellant’s
obtaining child pornography. The affidavit of probable cause contained the
same information that was in the previous affidavit of probable cause, in
addition to Appellant’s statement that he had ”pictures” of teenage girls in
bikinis on his cellphone and that he had “nothing to hide.” The court granted
the second application (“Second Search Warrant”). Officer Cole executed the
-2- J-A15014-24
warrant on April 4, 2022, and recovered 400 images of pre-pubescent female
children, including photos of them nude, in their underwear, and posing
provocatively. On May 27, 2022, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with
189 counts of Sexual Abuse of Children – Child Pornography.2
On March 7, 2023, Appellant filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion to
Suppress, claiming that the search warrants were not supported by probable
cause. Two days later, the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
Appellant proceeded to trial and on March 17, 2023, a jury found him
guilty of all 189 counts of Sexual Abuse of Children – Child Pornography. On
July 25, 2023, the court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate of 50-100 years’
incarceration, comprised of 25-50 years’ incarceration for each of the 189
counts, with the sentences on the first two counts to run consecutively to one
another and the remaining counts to run concurrently. However, Appellant
filed a Post Sentence Motion to Modify the Sentence, which the court granted,
imposing the same sentences for each count and directing they each run
concurrent to the first count, thus limiting the aggregate sentence to 25-50
years’ incarceration.
2 “Any person who intentionally views or knowingly possesses or controls any
book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act commits an offense.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6312(d).
-3- J-A15014-24
Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Statement. The trial court filed a responsive Rule 1925(a) Opinion
concluding that probable cause supported both search warrants.
B.
Appellant presents the following issue for this Court’s review:
Did the [t]rial court err in denying the Appellant’s Pre-Trial Omnibus Motion Nunc Pro Tunc to suppress evidence obtained by search warrants dated December 6, 2021, and March 30, 2022?
Appellant’s Br. at 4.
C. Our review of “a challenge to the denial of a suppression motion is
limited to determining whether the suppression court’s factual findings are
supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from those
facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649, 654 (Pa. 2010).
This Court is “bound by the factual findings of the suppression court,” but we
are not bound by its legal conclusions, which we review de novo.
Commonwealth v. Briggs, 12 A.3d 291, 320-21 (Pa. 2011). We may only
review “the evidence presented at the suppression hearing when examining a
ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress.” Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208
A.3d 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).
“Probable cause exists where, based upon a totality of the circumstances
set forth in the affidavit of probable cause, including the reliability and veracity
of hearsay statements included therein, there is a fair probability that . . .
-4- J-A15014-24
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Commonwealth v.
Fletcher, 307 A.3d 742, 746 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). “The task
of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense
decision . . .. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the
magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921, 925 (Pa. 1985) (internal quotation
marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
213, 238-39(1983)).
D.
Here, Appellant contends that the Initial Search Warrant was not
supported by probable cause because the content discovered by his daughter
was not illegal. Appellant’s Br. at 15. Specifically, he contends that because
photos of young girls in bikinis are common in advertising, one photo of a pre-
pubescent girl in a bikini is not indicative of child pornography. Id. Appellant
also argues that the phrases contained in the browser history photographed
by his daughter “are not illegal on their face” and “one would have to use
hyper technicalities to construe these terms as being someone searching for
inappropriate images of children.” Id., at 16.
In its Rule 1925(a) Opinion, the court explained that it denied
Appellant’s motion to suppress because the photo on Appellant’s phone
together with the browser search history led to a “common-sense decision
that there is a fair – I would render a high probability that contraband or
-5- J-A15014-24
evidence of a crime related to child pornography existed on the [Appellant’s]
cellphone.” Id. at 4. See also N.T. Suppression, 3/9/23 at 13.
Following our review, we find the record supports the trial court’s factual
findings and the court properly applied the law to the facts. The affidavits
supporting the search warrants contained sufficient information to conclude
that there was a “fair probability” that the phone contained child pornography.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the photo of the young girl in the bikini
combined with the internet search terms “young boys with big dicks do it in a
threesome,” “mom allowed daughter to pose,” and “hot teen boys blowjobs,”
do not require a “hyper technical” construction to conclude that probable
cause existed that Appellant’s phone contained child pornography and thus,
supported the search of Appellant’s cell phone for evidence of child
pornography.
Appellant also contends that the court erred in denying his motion to
suppress because the “December 6, 2021 search warrant makes no
statements to the reliability of the statements made by the Appellant’s
daughter.” Appellant’s Br. at 17. In support, Appellant cites case law
involving information provided by unnamed informants, not named sources.
Id. at 17, citing Commonwealth v. Gindlesperger, 706 A.2d 1216, 1225
(Pa. Super. 1997), and Commonwealth v. Gray, 469 A.2d 169, 174 (Pa.
Super. 1983). These cases are inapposite.
-6- J-A15014-24
Here, the source of the information was Appellant’s daughter, a named
source, not a confidential informant. Further, she provided evidence to
corroborate her information to Officer Cole, which he references in his affidavit
of probable cause. Appellant presented no evidence or argument at the
suppression hearing that his daughter was not reliable, not to be believed, or
that the photos she presented to police officers were not of his cell phone.
Appellant’s argument is meritless.
In conclusion, the affidavits of probable cause contained sufficient
information from which to conclude that there was a fair probability
that evidence of a crime would be found on Appellant’s cell phone. The record
supports the suppression court’s factual findings, and the court properly
applied the law to the facts. We affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of Sentence Affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 07/23/2024
-7-