Judge rules against defense motion in Sprinkle case
By Debbie Lowe Staff writer

Sprinkle

Leon Sprinkle, 49, was charged in June, 2006 with five felony counts of possession of child pornography and one count of felony child solicitation. His bond was set at $45,000 in June, reduced to $10,000 in September and reinstated to the original amount in February. Sprinkle remains in the Carroll County Jail.

Sprinkle's defense attorney, Patrick Manahan, filed a motion Jan. 26 to quash the search warrant, which produced some of the evidence the prosecution's case is based upon. The motion also requested the court suppress evidence in the state's case against his client.

Carroll Circuit Court Judge Donald Currie heard testimony in a Feb. 5 hearing.

Manahan maintained the search warrant was not valid to search his client's room in the house but that it only pertained to the part of the house occupied by Keith Munson. Munson was also charged with crimes against children in June 2006.

Manahan said state and federal laws gave his client the right to be free from unreasonable search. He said all of the evidence introduced for the probable cause hearing was related to the bedroom occupied by Munson, not the room Sprinkle slept in.

Chief investigator in the case, Carroll County Sheriff's Detective Steve Mullin, testified that he received permission from Sprinkle to search his room. Mullin said he did not inform Sprinkle he had a right to seek legal council and he did not inform Sprinkle that he had a right to refuse to let police search his room.

When questioned by county prosecutor Tricia Thompson, Mullin testified he believed he had a valid search warrant to perform a search of the entire house.

He said computers were found in different areas of the house, including both Munson's and Sprinkle's bedrooms. The computers were found to be networked with a cable using a router. Mullin said some of the same photos, which implicated both men, were found on computers in both bedrooms.

Other items found in Sprinkle's bedroom were clothing items allegedly belonging to the victims in the case.

Thompson argued there was substantial basis to obtain the warrant. She said Sprinkle did not show an expectation of privacy due to the computers being networked and his sharing of confidential passwords with Munson.

Thompson said Sprinkle was not in custody at the time of the search and police officers were not obligated to advise him of his rights.

"The warrant said to search diligently," Thompson concluded, "and the officers did that."

A Feb. 20 order issued by Currie stated the search warrant did not limit the search to the bedroom of one or more of the individuals living in the home, but rather was inclusive of the entire "residence."

The warrant gave officers permission to "…search for the presence of evidence of child pornography in digital or printed form including all forms of digital storage such as DVD, DC, hard-drives, memory sticks, floppy disks and other digital media or storage mechanisms, as well as any prints of such photographs."

The order further stated, "law enforcement officers executing the warrant had specific authorization to search and seize electronic digital media...the challenged evidence taken and seized pursuant to the search warrant were not obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights."

However, Currie sided with the defense to suppress evidence seized that was not electronic data in nature, such as clothing, stating the items were "outside the scope of the search warrant."

Sprinkle is scheduled for trial March 19 at 9 a.m. in Carroll Circuit Court.