Filed: Jul. 16, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-3430 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRANDON CARTER, Appellant _ On Appeal from the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00161-001 (Honorable Joy Flowers Conti) _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 10, 2013 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN, VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 16, 2013) _ OPINION OF THE COURT _ SCIRICA, Circuit Judge. Brandon Carter was indic
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 12-3430 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. BRANDON CARTER, Appellant _ On Appeal from the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00161-001 (Honorable Joy Flowers Conti) _ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 10, 2013 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN, VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 16, 2013) _ OPINION OF THE COURT _ SCIRICA, Circuit Judge. Brandon Carter was indict..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3430
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
BRANDON CARTER,
Appellant
_______________________
On Appeal from the District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00161-001
(Honorable Joy Flowers Conti)
______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 10, 2013
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN, VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 16, 2013)
_________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________________
SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.
Brandon Carter was indicted for possession of child pornography and receipt of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (a)(4)(B). The District Court
denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his computers, finding
the evidence admissible under the independent source doctrine. Carter entered a
conditional plea of guilty to possession of child pornography, and now appeals from the
denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison.
I.
Carter was arrested on May 13, 2008 for counterfeiting gift certificates and
Federal Reserve Bank Notes. His car was impounded, and during an inventory search of
the car, police officers found counterfeit banknotes and counterfeit gift certificates made
on VersaCheck paper stock. VersaCheck is a software program that allows a person to
print his or her own checks.
The police contacted the Secret Service to investigate the counterfeit banknotes.
Secret Service Agent Michael Radens began investigating the location of Carter‟s
computer(s), because counterfeiters often used computers and the VersaCheck software
was run on a computer. At the time of his arrest, Carter lived with his ex-girlfriend,
Stephanie Kennedy, who was evicted from the home on June 1, 2008, while Carter was
incarcerated. On June 11, Radens interviewed Kennedy and learned that Carter had two
computers that were kept in a spare bedroom, which served as a home office. Kennedy
told Radens she had seen a $500 gift certificate on the floor of the office, but had thrown
it in the trash.1 Kennedy told Radens she left all of Carter‟s property on the back porch
of his parents‟ house when she was evicted, including the two computers. Radens took
notes on this interview and began to prepare an affidavit to apply for a warrant to search
1
When Radens showed Kennedy a picture of a counterfeit gift certificate Carter had used
at a local retailer, Kennedy told Radens it looked like the gift certificate she had found on
the floor of Carter‟s home office.
2
the Carter home for the computers. Prior to the interview with Kennedy, Radens
instructed Agent Brian Morris to report directly to the Carter home, because he was
concerned Kennedy might have warned the Carters the Secret Service was looking for
defendant‟s computers.
Immediately following the interview with Kennedy, Radens rendezvoused with
Kernan and Morris at the Carters‟ residence. They knocked on the door and the rear
window, but no one answered. Radens then called defendant‟s mother, Rochelle Carter,
who initially denied the computers were in the house. When Radens told Rochelle Carter
that he could get a warrant to search the house for the computers, she said that she would
give the agents the computers when she returned home after work. Radens then left to
obtain a search warrant, and instructed Morris and Kernan to watch the house in case
someone tried to remove the computers. After Radens left, defendant‟s father, Laverne
Carter, came out of the house, and explained to Morris and Kernan that he did not hear
the knocking since he was sleeping after working the midnight shift. Laverne Carter told
the agents that the computers were in the basement, and signed a consent form permitting
a search of the basement.2 The agents recovered two computers, a Gateway and an HP,
from the Carters‟ basement, and took them to the Pittsburgh field office. Kernan called
Radens to tell him they had obtained the computers. Radens did not complete the warrant
application.
On June 23, 2008, a magistrate judge signed a warrant authorizing the search of
both computers for evidence of counterfeiting. The warrant was based on Radens‟
2
There is a factual dispute whether Laverne Carter was told the agents already had a
search warrant.
3
affidavit reciting the facts described above, including the search of the Carter home and
the seizure of the computers from the basement. After obtaining the warrant, the agents
discovered the hard drive was missing from the HP computer. Radens contacted
Kennedy, who was deployed in the Air Force at the time. Kennedy said she did not know
if she had the hard drive, but said she would ask her boyfriend to search her belongings
for it. Kennedy later contacted Radens and told him that her boyfriend had found the
hard drive, and that she had sent it to the Secret Service. The Secret Service received a
Western Digital hard drive from Kennedy on July 23, 2008.
On June 25, the Gateway hard drive was imaged. During a search of the Gateway
hard drive for evidence of counterfeiting, agents discovered evidence of child
pornography. They stopped the search, and obtained a second warrant to search the
Gateway computer for child pornography on August 7, 2008. Agents obtained a third
warrant to search the Western Digital hard drive on August 21, 2008.
As noted, Carter moved to suppress evidence obtained under all three search
warrants, contending the initial search of the Carter home violated his Fourth
Amendment rights and the warrants were obtained as a result of that illegal search. The
District Court found that even if the initial search of the Carter home was invalid, the
evidence was admissible under the independent source doctrine.
II.3
“Typically, the exclusionary rule requires that we suppress evidence obtained as a
3
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the District Court‟s denial of
a motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying factual determinations but
exercise plenary review over the District Court‟s application of law to those facts.”
United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 230 (3d Cir. 2011).
4
result of an illegal search.” United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219, 243 (3d Cir. 2011)
(citing Wong Sun v. United States,
371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963)). But, “[t]he independent
source doctrine serves as an exception to the exclusionary rule and permits the
introduction of „evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful
search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial
illegality.‟” United States v. Price,
558 F.3d 270, 281 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Murray v.
United States,
487 U.S. 533, 537 (1988)).
Since we agree with the District Court that the independent source exception is
dispositive, we do not consider whether the search of the Carter home and seizure of the
two computers was unconstitutional. We find the independent source doctrine applies to
the initial search of defendant‟s two computers. Accordingly, the second and third search
warrants, based on information obtained in execution of the first search warrant, were
also valid.
Evidence that is obtained during an illegal search may be admissible under the
independent source doctrine. See Murray, 487 U.S. at 537 (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467
U.S. 431, 443 (1984) (“When the challenged evidence has an independent source,
exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have
been in absent any error or violation.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence
is from an independent source if “(1) . . . a neutral justice would have issued the search
warrant even if not presented with information that had been obtained during an unlawful
search and (2) . . . the first search [had not] prompted the officers to obtain the
[subsequent] search warrant.” United States v. Herrold,
962 F.2d 1131, 1144 (3d Cir.
5
1992).
A.
We review whether the Magistrate Judge had a substantial basis to find the
affidavit supported probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236-37 (1983). A
warrant must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.
1.
“„A reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the
remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to
issue a warrant.‟” Herrold, 962 F.2d at 1138 (quoting United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d
782, 788 (9th Cir. 1987)). Probable cause exists if “the issuing magistrate [makes the]
practical, common-sense decision [that], given all the circumstances set forth in the
affidavit before him . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
will be found in a particular place.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. “While ideally every
affidavit would contain direct evidence linking the place to be searched to the crime, it is
well established that direct evidence is not required for the issuance of a search warrant.”
United States v. Jones,
994 F.2d 1051, 1056 (3d Cir. 1993) (“[P]robable cause can be,
and often is, inferred by „considering the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the
suspect‟s opportunity for concealment and normal inferences about where a criminal
might hide stolen property.‟” (quoting United States v. Jackson,
756 F.2d 703, 705 (9th
Cir. 1985)).
We explained in Jones that an affidavit that supports the inference that contraband
6
will be found in the place described provides probable cause to issue a search warrant.
Id. at 1056. The defendants in Jones stole a large amount of cash, and had ample time to
hide the money. Id. The affidavit supported a sufficient nexus between the crime and
defendants‟ homes, because it stated a cellphone stolen in the robbery would be found in
one of the homes, and another defendant parked a motorcycle likely purchased with the
stolen money outside of his home. Id. at 1056-57. We found it was reasonable to infer
that the money was likely hidden in the defendants‟ homes, so the affidavit describing the
crime and the time frame provided probable cause to issue the warrants to search
defendants‟ homes for evidence of the theft. Id.
The only new information discovered through the search of the Carter basement
was the brand name and serial number of defendant‟s computers. Excising this
information from the affidavit, there was, as the District Court found, “a surplus of
evidence” to support probable cause. The affidavit said the counterfeit gift certificates
officers found in defendant‟s car were likely produced by a computer program, and a
witness told Agent Radens she saw a similar gift certificate on the floor of defendant‟s
home office where he kept his computers, and told Radens where the computers were
located. The facts in this affidavit requires less of an inference than did the affidavit in
Jones. We agree that there was a substantial basis for the Magistrate Judge to find the
affidavit supported probable cause to search defendant‟s computers even without the
computer brand name and serial numbers. Accordingly, when excising the information
obtained from the initial search, the affidavit still supported probable cause to issue the
search warrant.
7
2.
“The Fourth Amendment provides that warrants must „particularly describ[e] the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.‟” United States v. Yusuf, 461
F.3d 374, 393 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. IV). General warrants are
invalid because they essentially authorize “a general, exploratory rummaging in a
person‟s belongings.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire,
403 U.S. 443, 467 (1971). A
warrant is not an invalid general warrant when “it does not vest the executing officers
with unbridled discretion to conduct an exploratory rummaging through appellees‟ papers
in search of criminal evidence.” United States v. Christine,
687 F.2d 749, 753 (3d Cir.
1982). In Christine we found a warrant authorizing seizure of all defendant‟s folders,
checks, general ledgers, correspondence, and “all other documents, papers,
instrumentalities and fruits of the crime” was sufficiently particular, because it limited the
search to certain items, so “the magistrate, rather than the officer, determined what was to
be seized.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Carter contends the warrant was not sufficiently particular without the serial
number and brand name of the computers obtained in the allegedly illegal search.
Excising the brand name and serial number, the warrant did not authorize a general
search of all of defendant‟s belongings, or even the entire contents of the computers.
Instead, it authorized the search of two computers known to belong to defendant, in a
location specified in the affidavit, and was limited to evidence of counterfeiting. The
warrant described the computers with more particularity than the documents and papers
described in Christine. Since the warrant did not authorize “a general exploratory
8
rummaging,” the warrant had sufficient particularity to comply with the Fourth
Amendment.
B.
The government must show the unlawful search did not prompt the officers to
obtain the search warrant. Murray, 487 U.S. at 542. In Price a defendant was arrested
after selling methamphetamine to an undercover officer. 558 F.3d at 273. The police
found incriminating paraphernalia on Price and in a valid search of his home. Id. at 273-
274, 279. Evidence found during the invalid search of a locked basement was not
excluded because, under the independent source doctrine, it seemed “impossible that the
police would not have applied for a warrant to search the basement of the house . . . .” Id.
at 282.
The police had similar evidence in this case. When defendant was arrested, police
found counterfeit banknotes and gift certificates in his car made from a computer
program. Kennedy told the police she had seen a counterfeit gift certificate in
defendant‟s home office, and told the police she brought defendant‟s two computers to
his parents‟ home. Under these circumstances, it is inconceivable the police would not
have applied for a warrant to search the Carter home for the computers. Moreover, the
District Court found Agent Radens decided to apply for the warrant before the search.
He began to draft the affidavit the day before the search, and left to apply for the warrant
before the search occurred. Accordingly, the decision to apply for the search warrant was
not prompted by the allegedly illegal search.
III.
9
For the foregoing reasons we will affirm the District Court‟s order.
10
