USA v. Patrick Kofalt

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: MCKEE, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and *THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Judge: THOMPSON Authoring. *The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-3258

Document: 003112391595

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/26/2016

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 13-3258
_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PATRICK JOSEPH KOFALT,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(No. 2-11-cr-00155-001)
District Judge: Honorable Nora Barry Fischer
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 23, 2014
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, CHAGARES, Circuit Judge, and THOMPSON, District
Judge.*
(Filed: August 26, 2016)
____________
OPINION**
____________

The Honorable Anne E. Thompson, United States District Judge for the District of New
Jersey, sitting by designation.
*

**This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 13-3258

Document: 003112391595

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/26/2016

THOMPSON, District Judge
Patrick Joseph Kofalt appeals the District Court’s denial of a motion to suppress
child pornography found on his computers that was seized upon execution of a search
warrant at his home on December 2, 2009. We will affirm for the reasons set forth by the
District Court.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). On appeal from the
denial of a motion to suppress, this Court reviews a District Court’s factual findings for
clear error and exercises de novo review over its application of the law to those factual
findings. United States v. Pavulak, 700 F.3d 651, 660 (3d Cir. 2012). “A magistrate’s
‘determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by a reviewing court.’”
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S.
410, 419 (1969)). “[T]he duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the
magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’ that probable cause existed.” Id.
at 238.
In denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, the District Court held, inter alia, that
“the Affidavit supplied the magistrate with ample reasons to find [the Minor child’s]
statements reliable and credible . . .” and that “there is sufficient evidence in the Affidavit
to establish that [Affiant] reasonably believed that child pornography could be found at
Defendant’s residence on his computer and other related equipment.” United States v.
Kofalt, CRIM. 11-155, 2012 WL 5398832 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2012). The District Court
2

Case: 13-3258

Document: 003112391595

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/26/2016

also found that “Defendant has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the Affidavit
contained false statements or omitted information that ‘were material, or necessary, to the
probable cause determination’ of the magistrate judge,” so he was not entitled to a
hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) to challenge the validity of the
warrant. Id.
In its thorough Memorandum Opinion, the District Court clearly explained its
reasons for denying the motion to suppress. The court’s analysis adequately and
accurately disposed of each of the arguments Defendant raised. Accordingly, the order of
the District Court denying the motion to suppress will be affirmed.

3