People v. Ward CA2/8

Filed 2/27/25 P. v. Ward CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B336697

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA500761) v.

ADAM WAYNE WARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

On May 19, 2022, the People charged Adam Wayne Ward with possession of child pornography after having had a previous conviction, under Penal Code section 311.11, subdivision (b). In April 2021, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) initiated its investigation of Ward after receiving a cyber tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Both Dropbox, Inc. (Dropbox) and WhatsApp LLC (WhatsApp) provided information to NCMEC regarding Ward. Dropbox provided NCMEC with 153 files of potential child sexual abuse material pertaining to Ward’s e-mail and IP addresses. From Ward’s briefing in trial court, it appears that WhatsApp provided one file of potential child sexual abuse material. After he was charged, Ward conducted discovery and served a subpoena duces tecum on Dropbox, among other corporations. Thereafter, Dropbox moved to quash the subpoena. In the subpoena, among other items, Ward sought any “Algorithms . . . utilized in any manner to conduct searches . . . of the items designated to NCMEC.” Ward similarly sought “[t]he record of any measure of reliability and/or accuracy as to such Algorithm(s) for the last [] five [] years” and any audits “conducted as to the reliability and/or accuracy of . . . the algorithm utilized.” After hearing argument, the trial court granted Dropbox’s motion to quash and denied Ward’s request for documents relating to Dropbox’s algorithm for identifying potential child sexual abuse material. After the court made its ruling, Ward sought no further discovery from Dropbox. On September 7, 2023, Ward, through counsel, filed a motion to quash and traverse the search warrants and a motion to suppress all evidence seized. On September 15, 2023, the