── Richard Lamar Martin v. State ──
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date: June 03, 2026
Category: General
THIRD DIVISION
DILLARD, P. J.,
GOBEIL and PIPKIN, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be
physically received in our clerk’s office within ten
days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
https://www.gaappeals.gov/rules
June 3, 2026
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A26A0749. MARTIN v. THE STATE.
PIPKIN, Judge.
Following a bench trial, Appellant Richard Martin was found guilty of
numerous counts of sexual exploitation of children. See OCGA § 16-12-100(b). He
appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it denied his pre-trial motion to
suppress evidence seized without legal justification. We affirm.
In a hearing on a motion to suppress, the trial court sits as the trier of
fact[,] and its findings are analogous to a jury verdict. Accordingly, we
defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations and will not disturb
its factual findings in the absence of clear error. And when reviewing the
grant or denial of a motion to suppress, an appellate court must construe
the evidentiary record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
factual findings and judgment.
State v. Culler, 351 Ga. App. 19, 19 (830 SE2d 434) (2019) (citation modified).
“Although we defer to the trial court’s factfinding, we owe no deference to the trial
court’s legal conclusions. Instead, we independently apply the law to the facts as
found by the trial court.” Id. (citation modified).
So viewed, the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress
shows that, in 2016, a federal agent running an investigation into the online
distribution of child sexual exploitation material learned of an IP address that was
being used to distribute child pornography through a peer-to-peer network. The
network in question required use of a specific computer to download and store the
files in order to share the images. The lead agent testified that having the physical
computer was crucial to their investigation because it was not until they had the
“computer in hand that [they were] able to say with certainty if that’s the computer
on the IP address which is sharing child pornography.” She further explained that if
the computer or hard drive where the images were downloaded were to be destroyed,
it would be impossible to access those images again.
The agent’s investigation uncovered an email address of
[email protected]
and a physical address of 5994 Spring Street in Austell, Georgia, which was an
2
efficiency lodge that rented individual rooms within the home. While the IP address
was registered to the physical location, officers could not determine which room or
resident was running the peer-to-peer network; consequently, they went to the
efficiency lodge to investigate and obtain additional information in hopes that they
could secure a search warrant.
During their investigation, officers learned that two people living in the lodge
had computers, one of which was Martin. Officers spoke to Martin outside of his
apartment and informed him that they were investigating the distribution of child
pornographic images. Martin admitted that he had a computer and used the internet
from that location, and he provided his email address as Old
[email protected].
Martin informed officers that Old Wolf was his nickname, and evidence was presented
at the hearing that the username on the peer-to-peer network was a variant of Old
Wolf. Officers requested consent to search Martin’s computer, which he denied.
Officers also requested consent to search any electronic storage devices; Martin
mentioned that he had a hard drive, and consented to the search of that device.
Thereafter,