United States v. Farrad, s. 16-5102/6730
Decision Date | 17 July 2018 |
Docket Number | Nos. 16-5102/6730,s. 16-5102/6730 |
Citation | 895 F.3d 859 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malik F. FARRAD, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Michael M. Losavio, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Luke A. McLaurin, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael M. Losavio, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Luke A. McLaurin, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: MOORE, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
Although the phrase "going undercover" may still connote high-stakes masquerading, twenty-first century undercover investigations can begin and end in cyberspace. This case stems from an undercover investigation on Facebook. The subject of the investigation, Defendant-Appellant Malik Farrad, was a felon prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm. In June 2015, after a two-day trial, a jury found Farrad guilty of breaking that prohibition. No physical evidence was presented, no witness claimed to have seen Farrad with a gun, and Farrad himself never made any statements suggesting that he owned a gun; instead, the Government relied primarily on photographs obtained from what was evidently Farrad's Facebook account. To help prove its case, however, the Government called two police officers: Officer Garrison, who testified that criminals are particularly likely to upload photos of criminal deeds soon after committing those deeds, and Officer Hinkle, who testified at length about the similarities between the photos and a real gun, as well as the dissimilarities between the photos and the closest fake gun of which he was aware.
Farrad now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of the photos into evidence, and the testimony that Officers Garrison and Hinkle were allowed to offer, as well as the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial, his sentencing as an armed career criminal, and the district court's failure to suppress the photos on Fourth Amendment grounds. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM .
After serving time in prison for a previous felony, Farrad was released from federal custody in January 2013. See, e.g. , R. 5-1 (Warrant Application at 3) (Page ID #9). Farrad came to the attention of local law enforcement sometime after June 10 of that same year, when "[v]arious confidential informants and concerned citizens" evidently "reported observing Farrad to be in possession of one or more firearms while in Johnson City, Tennessee." Id. at 4 (Page ID #10). Some time later, a Johnson City police officer named Thomas Garrison, using an undercover account, sent Farrad "a friend request on Facebook." R. 71 (Trial Tr. Vol. I at 81, 90–91) (Page ID #679, 688–89). After Farrad "accept[ed] the friend request," Garrison was able to see more of Farrad's photos. See id. at 81 (Page ID #679). "One [photo] in particular" "caught [his] interest": a photo that showed what appeared to be three handguns "sitting on a closed toilet lid in a bathroom." Id. at 81–82 (Page ID #679–80); see also Appellant's App'x at 6. The photo had been uploaded on October 7, 2013. R. 71 (Trial Tr. Vol. I at 83) (Page ID #681); Appellant's App'x at 7.
Garrison brought the photo to the attention of Johnson City police officer and FBI task force officer Matthew Gryder, who applied on October 25, 2013, for a warrant to search Facebook's records for "information associated with the Facebook user ID MALIK.FARRAD.5." R. 5-1 (Warrant Application at 4, 10–11) (Page ID #10, 16–17). A federal magistrate judge granted the warrant application. R. 5-4 (Search and Seizure Warrant at 1) (Page ID #25). The warrant mandated execution "on or before November 6, 2013," id. , and the return executed by federal law enforcement indicates that the warrant was "served electronically" on Facebook on November 1, 2013, id. at 2 (Page ID #26).
The resulting data yielded a series of additional photos that are central to this case: some show a person who looks like Farrad holding what appears to be a gun, see, e.g. , Appellant's App'x at 11–14, while others show a closer-up version of a hand holding what appears to be a gun, see, e.g. , id. at 16–26.1 While none of the photos shows a calendar, date, or one-of-a-kind distinguishing feature, the person in the photos has relatively distinctive tattoos, and some of the photos show, as backdrop, the décor of the room in which they were taken. See id. at 6, 11–12, 19–20, 22–23, 25–26. Facebook records revealed that the photos had been uploaded on October 11, 2013. See id. at 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 26.
In September 2014, a federal grand jury charged Farrad with having, "on or about October 11, 2013, ... knowingly possess[ed] ... a firearm, namely, a Springfield, Model XD, .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol." R. 3 (Indictment) (Page ID #3). On March 26, 2015, Farrad filed a pro se motion seeking an evidentiary hearing, dismissal of the indictment against him, and suppression of the Facebook photos on Fourth Amendment grounds. R. 22 (Pro Se Mot.) (Page ID #85–91). The magistrate judge assigned to Farrad's case denied that motion on April 9, 2015, on the grounds that Farrad already had appointed counsel and the local rules prohibited a represented party from "act[ing] in his or her own behalf" without "an order of substitution." R. 24 (Order at 1) (Page ID #93) (quoting E.D. Tenn. Local Rule 83.4(c) ). Farrad's trial counsel did not renew Farrad's motion.
The parties did, however, litigate the admission of the photos on evidentiary grounds. The Government argued that the Facebook photos qualified as business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) and that they were, as such, self-authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11). R. 26 (Gov't's Mot. in Limine at 1) (Page ID #100). In support of its assertion, the Government introduced a certification by a Facebook-authorized records custodian, who attested that the records provided by Facebook—including "search results for basic subscriber information, IP logs, messages, photos, [and] other content and records for malik.farrad.5"—"were made and kept by the automated systems of Facebook in the course of regularly conducted activity as a regular practice of Facebook" and "made at or near the time the information was transmitted by the Facebook user." R. 26-1 (Facebook Certification) (Page ID #105). In addition to disputing admissibility under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, and 406, R. 30 (Def.'s Response to Gov't's Tr. Br. at 3) (Page ID #119), Farrad's trial counsel argued that the photos, despite the custodian's affidavit having been "done correctly under the federal rules," were "hearsay within hearsay" and did not "authenticate who took the pictures, when the pictures were taken, by whom, at what time," R. 60 (Pretrial Conf. Tr. at 11) (Page ID #456). All that the custodian could attest to, trial counsel emphasized, was "that at some point these pictures were uploaded to what [was] allegedly [Farrad's] Facebook account"; the custodian could not "testify as to ... who took [the photos], when they were taken, where they were taken." Id. at 12 (Page ID #457). On June 15, 2015, the district court concluded that it had "found no indication of a lack of trustworthiness" and that the photos qualified as business records under Rules 803(6) and 902(11). See R. 73 (Pretrial Hr'g Tr. at 33) (Page ID #872). It also determined that the photos were relevant. See id. at 35–37 (Page ID #874–76).
Trial began the next day. At trial, the jury first heard from Garrison, who not only detailed his discovery of the precipitating toilet-seat photo, R. 71 (Trial Tr. Vol. I at 83) (Page ID #681), but also, in his capacity as an experienced user of social media in the service of police investigations, see id. at 80 (Page ID #678), discussed broader trends in how people who have committed crimes behave on social-media platforms. After Garrison conceded that users "can upload ... pictures to Facebook that were taken at different times," id. at 84 (Page ID #682), the following exchange occurred:
Although Garrison admitted that he could not "think of a specific instance" in which he had "talked to a target about specific things on Facebook" or recall "specific instances of training" on the subject, id. at 85 (Page ID #683), the Government asked him to explain why "people choose to post criminal conduct that they're involved in, to social media," id. at 86 (Page ID 684). This exchange followed:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moody v. United States
...held that Almendarez-Torres "is still good law and will remain so until the Supreme Court explicitly overrules it." United States v. Farrad, 895 F.3d 859, 888 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Nagy, 760 F.3d 485, 488 (6th Cir. 2014) ; see also United States v. Pritchett, 749 F.3d 41......
-
Madej v. Maiden
...the opinion is "less reliable, and more likely to be excluded under Rule 702." Gass , 558 F.3d at 427–28 ; United States v. Farrad , 895 F.3d 859, 884 (6th Cir. 2018). Dr. Singer's opinion fits that bill. As a primary-care physician, she conceded that "it's not my skill set to diagnose" mul......
-
Pinder v. 4716 Inc.
...App. 2019) (Facebook post "may be admitted if reasonable extrinsic evidence tends to show the party made it."); United States v. Farrad , 895 F.3d 859, 878 (6th Cir. 2018) (Facebook photo of defendant admissible when other evidence suggested photos were what they claimed to be). The alleged......
-
United States v. Anthony
...v. Zodhiates, 901 F.3d 137, 143–44 (2d Cir. 2018) ; United States v. Chavez, 894 F.3d 593, 608 (4th Cir. 2018) ; United States v. Farrad, 895 F.3d 859, 891 n. 24 (6th Cir. 2018).Therefore, I find that the Government's actions fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, gi......
-
Trials
...refused to review ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because defendant did not present claim to trial court); U.S. v. Farrad, 895 F.3d 859, 870 n.5 (6th Cir. 2018) (court refused to review ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal because brief barely addressed claim and reco......
-
Chapter 8
...1172-73.[43] . Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).[44] . Id. at 551.[45] . Id. at 553.[46] . United States v. Farrad, 895 F.3d 859, 878 (2018).[47] . Id. at 877-78.[48] . United States v. Vayner, 769 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014).[49] . Elizabeth A. Flanagan, #Guilty? Sublet v......