U.S. v. DAVIS, 14-76. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20151020909
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2015
Summary: FootNotes 1. R. Doc. 16. 2. Id. at 3. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. R. Doc. 46-3. 7. Id. at 8-9. 8. Id. at 14-23. 9. R. Doc. 46-1. 10. R. Doc. 46-3 at 16. 11. Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. Id. at 17. 17. Id. 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. Id. 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Id. at 17-18. 24. Id. at 18. 25. Id. 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. Id. 29. Id. at 20. 30. Id. 31. Id. 32. Id. at 21. 33. Id. 34. Id. 35. Id. 36. Id. 37
Summary: FootNotes 1. R. Doc. 16. 2. Id. at 3. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. R. Doc. 46-3. 7. Id. at 8-9. 8. Id. at 14-23. 9. R. Doc. 46-1. 10. R. Doc. 46-3 at 16. 11. Id. 12. Id. 13. Id. 14. Id. 15. Id. 16. Id. at 17. 17. Id. 18. Id. 19. Id. 20. Id. 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Id. at 17-18. 24. Id. at 18. 25. Id. 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. Id. 29. Id. at 20. 30. Id. 31. Id. 32. Id. at 21. 33. Id. 34. Id. 35. Id. 36. Id. 37...
More
FootNotes
1. R. Doc. 16.
2. Id. at 3.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id.
6. R. Doc. 46-3.
7. Id. at 8-9.
8. Id. at 14-23.
9. R. Doc. 46-1.
10. R. Doc. 46-3 at 16.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 17.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 17-18.
24. Id. at 18.
25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 20.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 21.
33. Id.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id. at 22.
38. Id. at 22.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 22-23.
42. R. Doc. 46-1 at 4. Upon review of the FBI 302, the Court finds that the report contains only one direct reference to JV making a statement about her age. According to the report, "[JV] told `Twon' she was only 16 years old." R. Doc. 46-4 at 1.
43. Recently, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c) underwent a slight revision. The statute now states: "In a prosecution under subsection (a)(1) in which the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the [victim], the Government need not prove that the defendant knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person had not attained the age of 18 years." This revision came into effect after the issuance of the search warrant at issue here. Thus, the applicable statutory provision for purposes of this order is the prior version of § 1591(c).
44. R. Doc. 46-1 at 4 n.2 (noting that a finding that Davis "had a reasonable opportunity to observe JV . . . would also satisfy the knowledge requirement under the statute").
45. Id. at 17.
46. Id.
47. Id.
48. R. Doc. 46-1 at 4 n.2
49. Because Special Agent Terry's affidavit establishes the probability of criminal activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, the Court need not address Davis's arguments concerning the existence of probable cause for the other crimes alleged in the affidavit. As noted, a search warrant applicant need only demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime can probably be found at the location to be searched. McKinney, 758 F.2d at 1042. Davis does not challenge the nexus between the alleged criminal conduct and the Bonnabel residence. Therefore, the Court's finding that probable cause existed for the crime of sex trafficking of children is dispositive of Davis's challenge to the affidavit on which the search warrant was based.
50. The facts adduced in Special Agent Terry's affidavit indicated that the Bonnabel residence was either Davis's own residence or a place where Davis spent significant amounts of time. Specifically, Davis was seen at the residence by JV, and a records search indicated that utilities for the property were in Davis's name. R. Doc. R. Doc. 46-1 at 21.
Source: Leagle
