United States v. Watkins

Citation760 F.3d 1271
Decision Date28 July 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–12549.,12–12549.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Charles Marvin WATKINS, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Todd B. Grandy, Cherie Krigsman, Robert E. O'Neill, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, David Rodney Brown, U.S. Attorney's Office, Jacksonville, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Mark S. Barnett, Fallgatter Farmand & Catlin, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for DefendantAppellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 3:10–cr–00073–TJC–JBT–1.

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and RIPPLE,* Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge:

Charles Marvin Watkins agreed to assist law enforcement in a murder investigation after the body of a seven-year-old girl, with whom he was acquainted, was found in a landfill. When questioned by an investigating officer, he admitted to having downloaded and viewed child pornography. A detective then asked Mr. Watkins for permission to search his computers for information relevant to the murder investigation. After being assured that the officer was not searching for his child pornography but only for clues to the girl's murder from sites she had visited on the computers while visiting his home, Mr. Watkins agreed to a search. His wife later independently consented to a general search of the computers.

Evidence of child pornography from the search was used subsequently to charge Mr. Watkins under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 for receipt of child pornography by computer over the internet. Mr. Watkins moved to suppress the evidence from the computers. A magistrate judge held a hearing and recommended denial of the motion. After reviewing the record, the district court denied the motion. It reasoned that the detective's assurances about the scope of the search had limited Mr. Watkins's consent to evidence relevant to the murder investigation, but that Mrs. Watkins's consent authorized a general search and therefore permitted discovery of the child pornography evidence. The district court held that the search was not invalid under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), because Mr. Watkins had not expressed an objection when his wife consented to an unlimited search. Mr. Watkins moved for reconsideration of the suppression order and to reopen the suppression hearing; his motion was denied. After a bench trial on the charged offense, Mr. Watkins was found guilty based on stipulated facts and was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment. He timely appealed.

We now determine that the search was valid because, despite the infirmities that the district court detected in Mr. Watkins's consent to search the computers, Mrs. Watkins consented to a full search of the computers, and Mr. Watkins failed to show that the search violated his rights under Randolph. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

IBACKGROUND
A.
1.

Somer Thompson, a seven-year-old girl, was murdered after she disappeared while walking home from school on October 19, 2009.1 She frequently had played with Mr. Watkins's grandchildren and other children at his home. Following her disappearance, Mr. Watkins was questioned by several local law enforcement officers as well as agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

On October 24, 2009, three days after Thompson's body was found in a Georgia landfill, FBI Special Agent Jonathan MacDonald and Florida Department of Law Enforcement Special Agent Keesha Woessner visited Mr. Watkins's home to talk to him about the murder. Agent MacDonald asked Mr. Watkins for permission to search his computer; he agreed. The agent looked at the internet search history and desktop items on the computer and unsuccessfully tried to run an FBI program to isolate images and videos. The agent also noted that LimeWire, a peer-to-peer file-sharing program, was running on the computer. The agent wrote down the computer's internet protocol address for later use because he knew that LimeWire was sometimes used to trade child pornography.

Later that day, an investigator from the Clay County Sheriff's Office asked Mr. Watkins to visit the office, and Mr. Watkins agreed. At the office, Mr. Watkins was interviewed by Detective Charlie Sharman. The interview was recorded on video. The detective told Mr. Watkins that he was being questioned about the disappearance of Somer Thompson. Mr. Watkins expressed a willingness to help in any way he could.

As the interview progressed, Mr. Watkins stated that his grandchildren and their friends, including Somer Thompson, had visited his house regularly. The children would use the internet to play online computer games, including Webkinz and Club Penguin. When questioned about who might have preyed on Somer Thompson, Mr. Watkins, “speculating about who might [have] be[en] responsible for Somer's abduction and murder, admitted he had previously downloaded and [ ] viewed child pornography on his computer.” 2 He “stated that he had knowledge of predators because he had viewed child pornography in the past.” 3 Upon further questioning, Mr. Watkins admitted that he had used LimeWire to download and view child pornography approximately one hundred times.

The detective then questioned Mr. Watkins about his child pornography activities and acknowledged that the questions might be “embarrassing ... but ... we're trying to get to the bottom of it.” 4 While Detective Sharman was briefly out of the room, but while the video recording continued, Mr. Watkins received a phone call from his wife. During the course of the call, he told his wife that he was being questioned about the children's computer use. He also related that he had told investigators about looking at some “pretty nasty stuff” 5 accessible through LimeWire.6

When Detective Sharman returned to the interview room, Mr. Watkins told the detective that the questioning was difficult for him because “some things ... might put [him] in a bad light,” but that he had “to be honest” with the detective.7 Mr. Watkins stated that he was “more concerned” about Somer Thompson.8 The detective replied, [t]hat is why we are here. We are not interested in ... what's on the computer unless there is something on the computer....” 9 The detective did not finish his sentence because Mr. Watkins interrupted, saying, [i]f it's relevant, you know.” 10

Detective Sharman then asked Mr. Watkins for access to the three computers in his home because they “may hold something about this, and they may not, you know.” 11 Mr. Watkins agreed to help the detective with “whatever [he] need[ed] from the computers.12 The detective then stated:

What I want to do is just get—just get a consent to look and see what—now you told me a couple of programs [Mr. Watkins's computers] got, and just see if anyone has been trying to pe[ek] in there or talk in there, if these people on the other end are who they say they are. I am not worried about your files and all that kind of stuff. That's what you—I've got my own private stuff on my computer, you know what I am saying? 13

Mr. Watkins replied affirmatively. The detective later asked to introduce Mr. Watkins to his “computer guy,” Detective Fred Eckert, so that investigators could examine the programs on his computer.14

Mr. Watkins subsequently read and signed a voluntary consent form authorizing a full search of his computers. Parts of the form were read aloud to Mr. Watkins by Detective Eckert, although the paragraph stating that he had been advised of his right to refuse consent and that he gave consent freely and voluntarily was not read aloud.

2.

Around the time that Mr. Watkins finished his interview at the sheriff's office, Detective Eckert, Sergeant Wayne McKinney and an evidence technician went to Mr. Watkins's home. Detective Eckert met Mrs. Watkins, explained that Mr. Watkins had signed a form consenting to a search of the computers in the home 15 and asked for her consent to search the computers as well. She agreed, although she later claimed that she did so with the understanding that the search was limited to the murder investigation and the websites the children had visited.

After Mrs. Watkins had consented verbally to a search of the computers, Mr. Watkins arrived. The couple spoke for a few minutes while Detective Eckert stood nearby. The detective later testified that he could not hear what they said; Mrs. Watkins testified that the detective could have heard and that Mr. Watkins had informed his wife that the officers were searching the computers only for information related to the children and the murder investigation.

Mrs. Watkins, the detective and Mr. Watkins then sat at a table together. The detective read aloud to Mrs. Watkins a form consenting to a complete search of the computers; Mrs. Watkins also read and signed the form. This consent form was identical to the one Mr. Watkins had signed at the sheriff's office. Mr. Watkins did not register any objection or reservation while officers sought and obtained Mrs. Watkins's consent to an unlimited search of the computers. Mr. Watkins then led investigators to the computers in the home, and the technician removed them.

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent James Greenmun performed a forensic analysis of an imaged copy of the hard drive on Mr. Watkins's personal computer.16 He discovered child pornography files that had been deleted. The Government then initiated a child pornography case against Mr. Watkins. Mr. Watkins subsequently withdrew his consent to the search of his computers, but Agent MacDonald obtained a search warrant for Mr. Watkins's computer.

B.

A grand jury charged Mr. Watkins with receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). Mr. Watkins moved to suppress the child pornography because, he urged, it was obtained through an unlawful search of his computer. After an evidentiary hearing, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • United States v. Thurman
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 2, 2018
    ...person may be expected to know that recently deleted information can be reconstructed on a cell phone. Cf. United States v. Watkins , 760 F.3d 1271, 1277, 1283 (11th Cir. 2014) (concluding that unlimited consent to search computer extended to forensic search that revealed deleted files); Lo......
  • Winslow v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • November 2, 2022
    ...14 (2011) (reviewing the trial court's determination of the appellant's scope of consent for clear error), United States v. Watkins , 760 F.3d 1271, 1283 (II) (B) (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court's finding that "unlimited consent to a search of [the appellant's] computers [w......
  • United States v. Leonard, 19-14142
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 8, 2021
    ...(5th Cir. 1970). We review a district court's decision to reopen a suppression hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Watkins , 760 F.3d 1271, 1284 (11th Cir. 2014). The "new evidence" Leonard points to does not contradict the testimony the court considered at the suppression hea......
  • United States v. Dukes
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 11, 2022
    ......177, 181 (1990); United States. v. Matlock , 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). In. Rodriguez , the Supreme Court held that an officer. may receive valid consent to enter a residence from “a. person with actual or apparent authority.” United. States v. Watkins , 760 F.3d 1271, 1279 (11 th . Cir. 2014) (citing Rodriguez , 497 U.S. At 186-89). “A third party has apparent authority to consent to a. search if an officer could have reasonably believed the third. party had authority over the area searched.” United. States v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • More Than Money: Emotional Distress Damages in Bankruptcy Proceedings
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 66-4, June 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...Id.93. Id.94. Id.95. Id. 96. Id.97. Id.98. Id.99. Id.100. See id. at 1271-72.101. See id. at 1271.102. See id. at 1271-72.103. Lodge, 760 F.3d at 1271.104. Id.105. Id. 106. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692 (2012).107. See, e.g., Ford v. Consigned Debts & Collections, Inc., No. 09-3102 (NLH) (AMD), 20......

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