U.S. v. Doyle

Citation650 F.3d 460
Decision Date23 May 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–4603.,09–4603.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,v.Robert Franklin DOYLE, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

650 F.3d 460

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Robert Franklin DOYLE, Jr., Defendant–Appellant.

No. 09–4603.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Jan. 28, 2011.Decided: May 23, 2011.


[650 F.3d 463]

ARGUED: John Edward Jessee, Jessee, Read & Ely, PC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and IRENE C. BERGER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.Reversed by published opinion. Judge WYNN wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge BERGER concurred. Judge DUNCAN wrote an opinion concurring separately and concurring in the judgment.
OPINION
WYNN, Circuit Judge:

While “objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion [of evidence],” where the information relied upon is “ ‘so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,’ ” exclusion is an appropriate remedy. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610–11, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)). In this case, the application for a warrant to search a private residence for evidence of child pornography failed to indicate that the pictures allegedly possessed by the resident were in fact pornographic and provided no indication as to when the pictures were allegedly possessed. Because it was unreasonable to believe that probable cause was demonstrated to search for evidence of the commission of a crime where the warrant application included scant indication that the crime had been committed and zero indication as to when it was committed, we conclude that exclusion of the evidence obtained from the search in this case is an appropriate remedy.

I.

On January 9, 2004, Captain Charles Taylor Scott (“Scott”) of the Lee County, Virginia Sheriff's Department executed a search warrant at the home of Defendant Robert Doyle, Jr. (“Doyle”). Doyle's computer was seized and a forensic examination of its hard drive revealed images of child pornography. On March 6, 2007, a federal grand jury indicted Doyle on separate counts of receipt 1 and possession 2 of child pornography. A superseding indictment, returned on September 11, 2007, repeated these two counts and added three

[650 F.3d 464]

counts of mailing 3 child pornography.

On August 9, 2007, Doyle filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the search of his home. In the motion, Doyle asserted that the search warrant was issued without probable cause. Specifically, Doyle argued that any information supporting a finding of probable cause was too “stale” to justify reliance thereon. On September 9, 2007, Doyle filed a supplement to the motion, arguing that “an insufficient factual basis as to the underlying alleged criminal conduct and reliability of the informant(s) was set forth within the Affidavit or otherwise represented to the state Magistrate to support a finding of probable cause.”

Scott's warrant application requested a search for evidence of a violation of “18.2–347.1:1 Possession of Child Pornography.” 4 Authorization was sought to search Doyle's house for “[a]ny and all materials, books, magazines, pictures, [or] videos that are of a sexual nature involving any minor child” as well as “any communication system that could be used to facilitate a sexual offense against a child. (computer).” In the section stating the “material facts constituting probable cause that the search should be made,” the affidavit stated: “Three minor children have come forward and stated that [Doyle] has sexually assaulted them at the Doyle residence. One victims [sic] disclosed to an Uncle that Doyle had shown the victim pictures of nude children.” The affidavit indicated that the affiant learned this information through an informant whose credibility was determined from “[d]etailed Victim statements of the assault and of the Doyle residence, where victims describe the assailants [sic] bedroom and vehicle he drives and description of the home. Which has all been verified by Sheriffs [sic] Dept.”

On September 11, 2007, a federal magistrate held an evidentiary hearing on Doyle's motion to suppress. During the hearing, it was revealed that although Scott signed the application for the search warrant, as well as the supporting affidavit, both documents were drafted by Scott's subordinate, Lieutenant Frank Rouse (“Rouse”).5 Indeed, Scott did not even participate in the investigation. Rouse accompanied Scott to apply for the search warrant and gave an unsworn “summary” of his investigation to the issuing magistrate to supplement the affidavit.6

At the evidentiary hearing, Rouse testified that during the first week of August 2003, Edward J. Jones came to his office at the Sheriff's department. Jones reported

[650 F.3d 465]

that during a family gathering the preceding week, his step-nephew claimed to have been previously sodomized by Doyle. The child also reportedly claimed to have witnessed his younger brother being sodomized by Doyle. Jones additionally informed Rouse that the child claimed that Doyle showed him pictures of nude boys.

Rouse further testified that on August 26, 2003, he interviewed the allegedly sodomized siblings at the Sheriff's department. According to Rouse, Child 1 7 (the step-nephew who spoke to Jones at the family gathering) relayed three separate accounts of sexual assault. First, Child 1 claimed that Doyle picked him up from a Rose Hill pool hall and offered him money to help take out the trash. According to Child 1, when they reached Doyle's home, Doyle pulled him out of the truck, took him inside, and sodomized him. The second incident was similar: Doyle allegedly picked up Child 1 and Child 1's brother (Child 2) at the pool hall, took them to Doyle's house, and proceeded to sodomize Child 2. The third incident involved Doyle allegedly fondling Child 1 after picking him up at a trailer park in Rose Hill. Notably, Rouse admitted that during the interview, Child 1 never alleged that Doyle showed him child pornography.

Rouse also summarized his interview of Child 2, who described being picked up by Doyle, told that they were going to take out the trash, then taken to Doyle's house. Child 2 did not describe what transpired in the house, instead saying that his older brother (Child 1) knew what happened to him. Child 2 did, however, mention a “dragon” on Doyle's bed. Again, Rouse conceded that Child 2 did not allege that Doyle showed him child pornography.

According to Rouse, a fellow investigator in the Sheriff's department revealed that a third child claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Doyle. On December 12, 2003, Rouse interviewed the child (Child 3), who gave an account of sexual assault similar to those of the other two children. Rouse stated that Child 3 claimed that Doyle picked him up at the pool hall in Rose Hill, offered him money to take out the trash, then took him to the Doyle house and sodomized him. Child 3 also mentioned a separate incident in which Doyle fondled him. Additionally, Child 3 described the vehicles in the driveway at Doyle's house, how to get to Doyle's bedroom upon entering the house, and the contents of Doyle's bedroom. Because Rouse had previously been in Doyle's home, he was able to verify the accuracy of Child 3's descriptions. According to Rouse, Child 3's description of the interior of the home formed the primary motivation to apply for a search warrant, as it corroborated the allegations of sexual assault. As with the other children, Rouse conceded that Child 3 never made an allegation that he was shown child pornography by Doyle.

Scott also testified at the evidentiary hearing. However, because of memory loss resulting from a recent all-terrain vehicle accident, he was unable to elaborate on Rouse's account. On cross-examination, Scott admitted that he never heard anyone say anything about Doyle possessing child pornography. He also admitted that he had not interacted with any informant in this case, despite swearing to the contrary in the affidavit offered in support of the warrant application. Scott was also unable to testify with certainty regarding his review of the affidavit, saying that it

[650 F.3d 466]

was “entirely possible” that he had not read it.

After hearing testimony from Scott and Rouse regarding the warrant application, the federal magistrate recommended granting Doyle's motion to suppress. The magistrate first concluded that there was insufficient evidence in the affidavit to support a finding of probable cause that child pornography would be found in the house. The magistrate noted that there was no evidence in the affidavit as to when the pictures were shown to Child 1, where they were shown to the child, or whether the pictures actually met the statutory definition of child pornography. Furthermore, the magistrate noted that there was no information in the affidavit to establish Jones's credibility. The magistrate also opined that the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement did not apply in this case. The magistrate concluded that Scott's reliance on the warrant was unreasonable because the affidavit contained knowing or reckless falsity and was so “bare bones” in nature that the issuing magistrate essentially acted as a “rubber stamp.”

Notwithstanding the magistrate's recommendation, on January 2, 2008, the district court entered an order denying Doyle's motion to suppress. The district court proceeded directly to the analysis of the applicability of the good faith exception to the warrant requirement.8 Though the court recognized that the affidavit contained factual inaccuracies,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
149 cases
  • United States v. Matish
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 21, 2016
    ...a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect." United States v. Doyle, 650 F.3d 460, 466 (4th Cir.2011) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) ) (internal quotations omitt......
  • United States v. Somerlock
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • May 4, 2022
    ...finding, the accused is not entitled to a Franks hearing. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-156, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; see also United States v. Doyle , 650 F.3d 460, 468 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating that "false information will only void a warrant if the information was necessary to the finding of probable ca......
  • United States v. Pavulak
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 21, 2012
    ...a probable-cause affidavit must contain more than the affiant's belief that an image qualifies as child pornography. United States v. Doyle, 650 F.3d 460, 474 (4th Cir.2011) (holding that there was no probable cause where the affidavit did not provide “anything more than a description of th......
  • United States v. Bosyk
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 1, 2019
    ...magistrate does not need to be excluded if the officer’s reliance on the warrant was ‘objectively reasonable.’ " United States v. Doyle , 650 F.3d 460, 467 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) ). Defendant argues that the g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Probable Cause in Child Pornography Cases: Does It Mean the Same Thing?
    • United States
    • Military Law Review No. 209, September 2011
    • September 1, 2011
    ...(“We are unwilling to assume that collectors of child pornography keep their materials indefinitely . . . .”); United States v. Doyle, 650 F.3d 460, 74-75 (4th Cir. 2011) (invalidating a search warrant where, inter alia , the affidavit was silent as to the age of the allegations). 212 Id. (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT