Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Raby CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H053719
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2109474)
v.
KEITH CHARLES RABY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Keith Charles Raby appeals from a judgment entered after
conviction following a no contest plea. Appointed counsel for Raby filed a
brief asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are
any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).)
Raby was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief but has not
responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to Raby, we affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
On or about March 5, 2021, San Jose Police Department Detective
Christopher McTiernan was connected to a peer-to-peer network on the
internet. McTiernan located a host computer on the network that was
sharing suspected child pornography files. McTiernan viewed two video files
that he determined constitute child pornography that had been shared by the
host computer to the network. Further investigation revealed that the IP
address associated with the computer sharing child pornography was used by
a Comcast subscriber named Thomas Gregory Raby, and the address of the
account was a house on Clydelle Avenue in San Jose. McTiernan received a
judicial search warrant to search the Clydelle Avenue house, a car, and
Thomas Gregory Raby.
On May 27, 2021, officers from the San Jose Police Department
executed the search warrant. Four individuals, Thomas Raby, his sons Matt
Raby and defendant Keith Raby, and his daughter were present at the house.
Inside the bedroom occupied by Keith Raby, officers found a “ ‘thumb drive’ ”
containing child pornography. Keith Raby (hereafter Raby) was found with
over 200 images and 90 videos of child pornography. Raby admitted
downloading and possessing child pornography.
The district attorney charged Raby by information with offering to
distribute, distributing or exchanging matter depicting a person under age 18
personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct (Pen. Code,2 § 311.1,
subd. (a); count 1); and possessing matter depicting a person under age 18
engaging in or simulating sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a); count 2).
1 Because Raby waived his right to preliminary hearing, these facts are
taken from the probation report prepared for his sentencing and the search
warrant affidavit.
2 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
Raby filed a motion to traverse the search warrant and to suppress
evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (i). Raby argued that the
search warrant affidavit lacked a nexus between the “ ‘host computer’ ”
eventually linked to Raby’s address and the files of child pornography viewed
by Detective McTiernan. He contended the search warrant affidavit did not
establish probable cause to search Raby’s residence. Raby also asserted that
McTiernan’s investigation was faulty because it did not consider whether
individuals not residing in the Raby residence could access the wireless
network whose IP address was revealed through the investigation. Raby
requested that the trial court quash the warrant as lacking in probable cause,
suppress any evidence obtained in reliance on the search warrant, or, in the
alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing on representations made in the
affidavit pursuant to Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154. The district
attorney opposed Raby’s motion, arguing the search warrant affidavit was
supported by probable cause.
On December 16, 2024, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on
Raby’s motion to quash and traverse the search warrant. The court heard
testimony offered by Raby from Vishal Sharma, a “networking technologist.”
Sharma testified as an expert “in the area of networking technology, peer-to-
peer networks, BitTorrent, and netstat.” Sharma testified that Detective
McTiernan’s affidavit does not explicitly state that McTiernan downloaded
two suspected child pornography files from the IP address associated with
Raby’s house. Sharma testified that the IP address is associated with the
wireless network router in Raby’s house, not any particular computer located
in the house. In addition, the wifi network from Raby’s house could have
reached other homes in the neighborhood. Based on the information in
McTiernan’s affidavit, McTiernan could not have known how many electronic
3
devices were using the modem attached to the IP address associated with
Raby’s house. Before this case, Sharma had never before reviewed a search
warrant. Sharma had no training or experience in how the police conduct
investigations using peer-to-peer networks.
Following Sharma’s testimony, both sides presented argument. Raby
contended the affidavit contained false information. For example, the
affidavit stated Detective McTiernan was connected to the host computer,
whereas he was actually connected to a router. Further, the affidavit
contained a material omission by failing to state that multiple electronic
devices could have been connected to the router. The district attorney argued
that the information in McTiernan’s affidavit met the probable cause
standard.
After hearing argument, the trial court found that there were no false
or misleading statements in Detective McTiernan’s affidavit. The court
additionally found that the information provided to the court in the affidavit
was supported by probable cause, and the affidavit was sufficient to establish
probable cause. The court agreed that the “request to search was not perfect
in delineating every detail and every step” in the investigation.
Nevertheless, the court found that the affidavit provided “probable cause to
believe that illegal images were being downloaded from the house from a
computer or device using an identified IP address connected to a Comcast
account in the name of Thomas Raby, who lived in the home.” While the
information might not be sufficient to “establish a conviction,” it did
“establish probable cause.” The court denied Raby’s motion to quash,
traverse, and suppress evidence.
4
On June 10, 2025, Raby pleaded no contest to both charges. The trial
court indicated a maximum sentence of 12 months in the county jail, with no
state prison. The district attorney objected to the court’s indicated sentence.
The trial court sentenced Raby on September 23, 2025. The court
suspended imposition of sentence and placed Raby on two years of formal
probation with conditions, including eight months in custody, which the court
permitted him to serve “on any program that probation deems appropriate,
including electronic monitoring.” The court also imposed electronic search
conditions, ordered Raby to complete a sex offender management program,
ordered other restrictions regarding contact with children, and ordered Raby
to register as a sex offender under section 290. The court awarded 1 day of
actual custody credit.
The trial court stayed the restitution fund fine and the $300 “fine plus
penalty assessment.” The court struck all other fees. Raby timely appealed.
Raby’s notice of appeal states that his appeal is based on the denial of a
motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5.
II. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Having undertaken an examination of
the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to Raby. We therefore affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
5
______________________________________
Danner, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
Greenwood, P. J.
____________________________________
Grover, J.
H053719
People v. Raby
