Abdulrazzak v. Fluke
| Decision Date | 13 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | 4:19-CV-04025-RAL,4:19-CV-04075-RAL |
| Parties | HAIDER SALAH ABDULRAZZAK, Plaintiff, v. BRENT FLUKE, WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
In 19-CV-4025, Petitioner Haider Salah Abdulrazzak (Abdulrazzak) filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction after a jury trial in state court of 14 counts of possession of child pornography and his sentence thereon. 19-CV-4025, Doc. 1. Specifically, Abdulrazzak contends in grounds one and two of his petition that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in not filing a motion to suppress statements Abdulrazzak made, particularly because Abdulrazzak's native language is Iraqi Arabic and not English. Id. In ground three, Abdulrazzak contends that he did not understand the Egyptian Arabic language translator at trial and thereby was deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights. Id. Ground four of the petition contends that Abdulrazzak's trial counsel failed to investigate potential alibi evidence of Abdulrazzak not being near his computer when at least two of the pornographic images were downloaded. Id. Abdulrazzak had appealed his conviction and sentence, which were summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court of South Dakota. 19-CV-4025, Doc. 1-6.
Abdulrazzak previously had filed a state court habeas corpus petition and amended petition; the amended petition filed in his prior state court habeas corpus action raised as its first four grounds the same grounds listed in his federal § 2254 petition in 19-CV-4025, Doc. 1. See 19-CV-4025, Doc. 1-7. State Circuit Court Judge Joseph Neiles denied Abdulrazzak habeas corpus relief after an evidentiary hearing and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Id. at Doc. 1-7, 1-9.
Upon Abdulrazzak's filing of his federal habeas action in 19-CV-4025, this Court screened the petition and required a response. Id. at Doc. 7. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 8; attached documents thereto, Docs. 9-1 through 9-10; and arranged for filing of the state trial court records including transcripts and certain exhibits. This Court granted Abdulrazzak additional time to reply. Id. at Doc. 13. Abdulrazzak filed a lengthy response raising many assertions and arguments not framed by his federal § 2254 petition. Id. at Doc. 14. Abdulrazzak also filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, in which Abdulrazzak requests both an evidentiary hearing and appointment of counsel. Id. at Doc. 15.
Abdulrazzak's second case in this Court, 19-CV-4075, involves a second separate petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a decision of the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles revoking his parole. 19-CV-4075, Doc. 1. In ground one, Abdulrazzak contends a violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to his refusal to admit matters related to a treatment program. Id. In ground two, he contends that a basis for revoking parole was not supported by records or evidence. In ground three, he contends that the board arbitrarily and capriciously modified his conditions to make them harsher. Id.
This Court screened the petition in 19-CV-4075 and required an answer. Id. at Doc. 5. Abdulrazzak failed to file a timely notice of appeal to state circuit court from the Board's decision, so he has filed a Motion to Excuse/Waive of Exhaustion contending that state court exhaustion of his claims would be futile, id. at Doc. 4, as well as a Motion to Supplement Record, id. at Doc. 6. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, id. at Doc. 7, and a supporting memorandum, id. at Doc. 8. Abdulrazzak opposes the motion to dismiss, id. at Doc. 12, and has filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, id. at Doc. 13. Abdulrazzak very recently filed a Motion for Injunctive Order, id. at Doc. 14, seeking to be transferred to a "work release unit pending the outcome of the petition," id. at Doc. 14 at 1. For the reasons explained herein, this Court dismisses both cases, 19-CV-4025 and 19-CV-4075.
In September of 2010, a grand jury in Minnehaha County, South Dakota, indicted Abdulrazzak on 14 counts of possession of child pornography in violation of SDCL § 22-24A-3. Abdulrazzak pleaded not guilty, and his case was tried to a jury in June of 2011.
Abdulrazzak's computer activity had triggered an investigation by Minnehaha County Sheriff's Department Detective Derek Kuchenreuther. Detective Kuchenreuther was assigned to the Internet Crimes Against Children division in the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office. JT1 at 99.1 As part of his duties to investigate child pornography on the internet, Detective Kuchenreuther uses investigatory software designed to search for internet protocol (IP) addresses that accessed child pornography. JT1 at 113. Upon finding an IP address identified as one downloading illegal content, Detective Kuchenreuther downloads files from that suspect IP address. Upon confirmingthose files contain illegal content, Detective Kuchenreuther can use the IP address to determine the physical location of that computer. JT1 at 107.
On December 8, 2009, Detective Kuchenreuther identified an IP address offering a list of files containing terms consistent with child pornography. JT1 at 113-14. The terms included PTHC (which stands for preteen hard-core), Lolita (a common search term for child pornography), young little girls, eight yo, ten yo, and twelve yo (with "yo" standing for years old). The files from the IP address at issue produced pornographic images of young girls. JT1 at 116. Detective Kuchenreuther determined that the IP address at question was registered to Abdulrazzak and obtained a search warrant. JT1 at 107, 117-21.
Some weeks later, Detective Kuchenreuther went with other law enforcement officers to Abdulrazzak's apartment residence. JT1 at 121. After knocking on the door and receiving no answer, Detective Kuchenreuther entered the apartment through an unlocked balcony door. JT1 at 122. Eventually, Detective Kuchenreuther and law enforcement made contact with two residents of the apartment—Abdulrazzak and his roommate Akeel Abed. JT1 at 122. Law enforcement found a computer in each of the occupants' separate bedrooms. JT1 at 123. In Abdulrazzak's bedroom, law enforcement found an external hard drive, CDs, DVDs, and thumb drives as well. JT1 at 123. As a part of the execution of the search warrant, Detective Kuchenreuther operated equipment and software that allowed him to make an exact duplicate of the hard drive of Abdulrazzak's computer. JT1 at 108.
Detective Kuchenreuther conducted a forensic examination of both Abdulrazzak's and Abed's computers. That forensic examination generated information regarding the images, videos, dates, and time files created, as well as their location on the hard drives. JT1 at 110-11, 133. The examination of Abed's computer found no child pornography on it. JT1 at 123. The examinationof Abdulrazzak's laptop and external hard drive revealed that at some point in time that laptop contained a program called LimeWire. JT1 at 124. LimeWire is a free software available to the public and used to download and share files such as music, videos, and photographs. JT1 at 111-12.
Law enforcement interviewed Abdulrazzak in his apartment living room. JT1 at 126. Law enforcement explained that Abdulrazzak was not under arrest and did not have to speak with the officers. Doc. 1-7 at 5.2 After being told why law enforcement was investigating child pornography downloaded from his IP address, Abdulrazzak admitted to using LimeWire to download pornography. JT1 at 129. Upon being asked what search terms he used, Abdulrazzak responded that he downloaded pornography by using "young movies" as a search term. JT1 at 129.
The forensic examination uncovered 34 images in unallocated space on the hard drive of Abdulrazzak's computer, JT1 at 132. Detective Kuchenreuther believed that the 34 images displayed prepubescent females based on the fact that the females depicted had "no breast development, no pubic hair, just small in stature." JT1 at 132. Abdulrazzak's external hard drive contained 299 images and 8 videos which had not been deleted. JT1 at 136. Detective Kuchenreuther believed that almost all of the images and videos contained child pornography. JT1 at 136.
Detective Kuchenreuther then met with prosecutors to discuss which images to charge Abdulrazzak as having in his possession. JT1 at 146-47. The prosecutor decided that Abdulrazzakwould be charged with 14 counts of possession of child pornography. JT1 at 147. Five of those counts were based on images obtained from the unallocated space on the laptop.
Notwithstanding his statements to investigators, Abdulrazzak testified at trial that he never used a computer to view child pornography. JT2 at 64, 68. Abdulrazzak told the jury that his computer was not password protected. JT2 at 67. He testified that he had many visitors to his apartment and that he allowed them to use his computer. JT2 at 65-66. During the rebuttal case, however, a computer expert called by the prosecution testified that Abdulrazzak's computer was password protected. JT3 at 8. Moreover, the evidence established that Abdulrazzak was not a novice when it came to computers, with his own resume showing that he had "four years of computer programming experience." JT3 at 11-12.
The jury found Abdulrazzak guilty on all 14 counts of possession of child pornography. JT3 at 103-04. At sentencing, the Honorable Peter Lieberman observed ST...
To continue reading
Request your trial