Bradley v. Warden, Cheshire Corr. Inst.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2020
• Docket Number: Civ. Act. No. 18-174-LPS
• Parties: EARL BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Cheshire Correctional Inst., Cheshire, CT, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

EARL BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Cheshire Correctional Inst., Cheshire, CT, andATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents.

Civ. Act. No. 18-174-LPS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

November 12, 2020

Earl Bradley. Pro Se Petitioner.

Carolyn S. Hake, Deputy Attorney General of the Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

November 12, 2020

Wilmington, Delaware

STARK, U.S. District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition") filed by Petitioner Earl Bradley ("Petitioner"). (D.I. 1) The State has filed an Answer in Opposition. (D.I. 18) For a multitude of reasons, the Court will deny the Petition. As explained in detail below, the Fourth Amendment claims are not legally cognizable on federal habeas review, all of the Petition's Claims are time-barred, and (in the alternative) the many ineffective assistance of counsel claims lack merit.

II. BACKGROUND

The facts leading up to Petitioner's arrest and convictions, as summarized by the Delaware Supreme Court in Petitioner's direct appeal, are as follows:

In December 2009, a mother informed a retired Delaware State Police detective of her young daughter's statement that [Petitioner], the child's pediatrician, had touched her vaginal area in the basement of his office during a routine medical visit. The retired detective informed Detective Thomas Elliott, who sat in on an interview of the child by the Child Advocacy Center. During the interview, the child repeated that [Petitioner] had touched her in that manner.

The Delaware State Police had received prior complaints in 2008 concerning [Petitioner]. Detective Elliott and another officer had sought a search warrant to search BayBees Pediatrics for evidence of child pornography, but that application was denied. One of the 2008 complaints involved a twelve-year-old female who visited Petitioner regarding a sore throat and possible pink eye. [Petitioner] conducted a full vaginal examination on her for several minutes. When the girl left, she started crying and told her mother that she felt dirty about the incident. Another case involved a six-year-old girl who visited Petitioner for Attention Deficit Disorder. [Petitioner] had the child take her clothes off, and attempted to perform a vaginal examination on her. Finally, a seven-year-old girl visited [Petitioner] for excessive urination. He performed two vaginal examinations on her, with the girl draped so that her mother could not see what was occurring. Detective Elliott also learned of a 2005 investigation into [Petitioner's] conduct by the Milford Police Department.

Based on the prior complaints against [Petitioner], the December 2009 complaint, and additional investigation, police applied for a new search warrant from the Superior Court. This December 15, 2009 search warrant application stated, in relevant part:

ITEMS TO BE SEARCHED FOR AND SEIZED:

1. Files to include medical files relating to the treatment and care of listed children, to include paper files, as well as computer files in regard to Child 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and any other alleged Victims that come forward from the time the search warrant is signed, until it is executed.

2. Video and photographs of the below listed location.

SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND / OR PLACE(S) AND / OR VEHICLE(S) AND / OR PERSON(S) TO BE SEARCHED:

A two story residence style building, white in color, located at 18259 Coastal Highway, Lewes, DE. 19958. There is a yellow Volk[s]wagon, with BayBees Pediatrics displayed on the car. There are signs at the front of the building that display "BayBees Pediatrics["] and "[Petitioner]" on the signs.

NAME OF OWNER(S), OCCUPANT(S) OR POSSESSOR(S) OF PREMISES AND/OR PLACE(S) AND/OR VEHICLE(S) AND/OR PERSON(S) TO BE SEARCHED:

Earl B. Petitioner (DOB — 05/10/53), a white male. BayBees Pediatrics, 18259 Coastal Highway, to include a white outbuilding, located on the property.

In the supporting affidavit of probable cause, Detective Elliott described reports of inappropriate touching and examinations of eight girls between the ages of approximately three years old and twelve years old. The reports included statements that [Petitioner] kissed patients on the mouth, touched their vaginal areas without apparent medical reason, or carried them around the office excessively. The affidavit also included accounts from former colleagues of [Petitioner] that patients had transferred from [Petitioner] to them because [Petitioner] conducted inappropriatevaginal examinations, separated children from their parents for long periods of time, or forced children to undress.

The affidavit also recounted a statement from a former employee that [Petitioner] had installed surveillance cameras throughout his current office, and that [Petitioner] could access those cameras from his home. According to a former colleague, [Petitioner] took digital pictures of patients and manipulated the pictures on his computer.

In describing the patient complaints, the affidavit referred to the main building and to an "outbuilding" behind [Petitioner's] office:

During an interview with the father of the child he advised when he was at the office on 10/28/09, he observed [Petitioner] carrying a patient to an outbuilding located behind the office.

Detective Elliott represented that he had corroborated the address of BayBees Pediatrics, and the existence of an outbuilding on the property. The affidavit stated:

The office also has an outbuilding, which affiant has learned is utilized by [Petitioner]. [Petitioner] takes his patients into the outbuilding as well as the basement of his office.

* * *

Your Affiant has shown that there is information that [Petitioner] has installed video recording devices throughout his office which not only are accessible by [Petitioner] at his office but that [Petitioner] has also configured the material recorded to be accessed at his home with the use of his home computer. Your Affiant has also shown information that [Petitioner] uses his personal computer in the Doctor's office and at home, takes digital photographs of patients and manipulates them on the computer. . . . Your affiant believes that evidence may be found on [Petitioner's] computers and/or digital recording equipment that will be able to corroborate statements made by witnesses, help in identification of other victim[s] in the search warrant. Your affiant also has knowledge that doctors use computers to store patient records and details of patients['] visits to the doctor.

Finally, in its request to search and seize computers electronic storage devices, the affidavit stated: "[a] suspect may try to conceal criminal evidence, he or she might store it in random order with deceptive file names. This may require searching authorities to examine all stored data to determine which particular files are evidence or instrumentalities of crime.

Police executed the search warrant on the morning of December 16, 2009. When the police arrived at BayBees Pediatrics, they discovered that the property contained four buildings, not two as previously believed. The four buildings consisted of: a main building for the medical practice ("Building A"); a white outbuilding ("Building B"); a white garage ("Building C") and a tan shed ("Building D"). Detective Elliott later testified at the suppression hearing that, in preparing the search warrant application, he had driven by on Route 1 and had only observed Building A and a "large white building towards the rear of the property," later determined to be Building B.

When Detective Elliott and his superiors observed the additional buildings on the day of the search, they called a Deputy Attorney General and asked for assistance. The Deputy Attorney General told them that she was on her way to the scene. By the time she arrived, however, the search was already under way. The police had concluded, without awaiting further advice from the Deputy Attorney General, that the warrant applied to all the buildings on the BayBees Pediatrics property.

Police officers entered Building A and found a video camera on the exam table of the first patient examination room on the right as they entered. The police also found and collected a digital camera from the office area behind the reception room. That camera was sitting on top of paper files. A video camera was also collected from a shelf in the basement of Building A. Police turned the cameras over to the High Tech Crime Unit for analysis without inspecting any data on them. Police recovered paper files for seven of the eight victims listed in the search warrant from Building A, except for the victim who had been linked to the 2005 investigation by Milford police.

Police officers also entered Building B, which contained an office area with a desk and shelving. They recovered numerous digital recording and storage devices from this building, including: five thumb drives from the top of the door frame; two digital hand-held recorders from the shelving and floor by the desk; six other thumb drives and three larger forms of removable media from the desk area; a 2G SanDisk card from a white envelope on a shelving unit; a SanDisk Cruiser thumb drive and Sony Handycam from the dresser;a Sony Net Share camera by the doors; a DVD; and two pen cameras, approximately four to five inches long. Police officers also found a Dell Dimension computer sitting on the desk, with a HP 4G thumb drive in the USB port. They recovered that thumb drive as well as a Sony HD webcam located next to the computer.

Police officers did not seize any evidence from Building C. Police officers entered Building D, the tan shed, and seized a total of thirty-four memory cards, a DVD, a thumb drive, and a desktop computer.

On December 17, 2009, Detective James Spillan began analyzing the digital evidence seized during the search. He first examined

...