People v. O’Dette

Defendant was convicted, after a stipulated bench trial, of possessing child pornography. Detective sent document entitled "Grand Jury Subpoena"  to AT&T Internet Service, returnably to detective personally; and AT& then sent documents directly to detective. Irregularities in detective's exercise of his authority were substantial and were an improper end-run around protections courts have recognized. Court properly denied Defendant relief as he failed to show prejudice. Document inaccurately stated that detective had made a complaint before the grand jury, which he had not.3 d(HUDSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)