Spriggs v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-13238 |
| Parties | TIMOTHY HOWARD SPRIGGS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos. 2:13-cv-14189-JEM 2:10-cr-14013-JFM-1 Before NEWSOM, MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and STORY, District Judge.
Timothy Howard Spriggs ("Spriggs") appeals the district court's denial of his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence ("Motion to Vacate") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Spriggs alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial attorney's decision not to pursue a motion to suppress "core evidence" against him, specifically, statements Spriggs made to law enforcement and evidence of child pornography obtained from his laptop computer. The district court held that Spriggs failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel and denied relief.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In January 2010, while conducting an internet investigation Det. Brian Broughton of the Martin County Sheriff's Department identified an Internet Protocol ("IP") address from Hobe Sound, Florida flagged as a device involved in the transmission of child pornography on numerous occasions in December 2009. Det. Broughton matched the IP address to an internet subscriber account for Charlotte Roseman and subsequently confirmed that Roseman owned the real property associated with the suspect IP address-11501 Southeast Ella Avenue ("11501" or the "11501 property").
In preparation for applying for a search warrant, Det. Broughton visited 11501 to obtain pictures. While there, he discovered and photographed a Bounder recreational vehicle ("RV") parked "adjacent to the residence of 11501."
It is undisputed that the RV was, in fact, parked on a separate property from 11501 and had a street address of 11491. Following the post-remand hearing in this case, the district court found "no evidence that law enforcement knew the RV was located on a lot with a different lot number" at the time the warrant was executed.
Det Broughton subsequently applied for and secured a search warrant authorizing a search of the 11501 property. The search warrant defined the "premise[] to be searched" as "11501 SE Ella Ave, Hobe Sound, FL 33450" and described the "residence" as a "single family home" with the number 11501 "affixed to the house." The warrant did not mention the RV, and the pictures attached to the application and warrant likewise did not depict the RV. In the affidavit accompanying the application for the warrant, which the warrant incorporated, Det. Broughton stated his belief that "the Premises and the curtilage thereof" were being used for the possession of child pornography.
On January 13, 2010, Det. Broughton and his partner, Det. Patrick Colasuonno, executed the search warrant. Det. Broughton wore an audio recording device, which he activated when they arrived. Det. Broughton did not record the entire time, but only recorded his exchanges with witnesses.
Upon their arrival at 11501, the detectives encountered Garry Spriggs and Junice Spriggs, the parents of Defendant/Appellant Timothy Spriggs ("Spriggs"); Phillip Spriggs, the brother of Spriggs; and Spriggs himself in the front yard (together, the "Spriggs family"). The Spriggs family advised Det. Broughton that the property owners were not home. In response to an inquiry from Det. Broughton whether the RV was "associated with the residence," Garry Spriggs answered in the affirmative and explained, "Yes, we park it in [Charlotte Roseman's] yard."
Det. Broughton explained the reason for his visit and that his investigation concerned "inappropriate material" such as "images of young children" being distributed from the IP address associated with the 11501 property. He asked if the property owners had WiFi and learned that they had an available wireless internet connection but did not have a computer. Garry Spriggs explained that the Spriggs family purchased internet service from the property owners when in town. Det. Broughton explained to the Spriggs family that he was looking for a computer with peer-to-peer file sharing software on it that would allow for downloading materials from the internet.
At Det. Broughton's request, the Spriggs family contacted Ms. Roseman, and she was asked to return home for execution of the warrant. While awaiting Ms. Roseman's arrival, the detectives questioned the Spriggs family further about the presence of computers on the property. Spriggs said that he possessed a Dell laptop computer that was in the RV, that he normally lived in Valdosta, Georgia, and that he used 11501 Ella Avenue as his address. Spriggs admitted that his laptop computer had file-sharing software on it and that his computer "[p]robably" had all three types of software Det. Broughton mentioned. After learning that there were computers in the RV, Det. Broughton advised the Spriggs family that because their computers were "on the property," they would also be subject to examination.
At some point after Det. Broughton explained with more specificity what he hoped to discover in the search, Spriggs asked to speak with the detectives privately, away from his family members. Spriggs told the detectives he was aware that there was "inappropriate" material on his laptop. Spriggs stated that the detectives needed only his computer and not the computers of his family members. When asked whether there was "a lot" on his computer, Spriggs stated that "it's going to look worse than it is." Spriggs was advised by both detectives several times that he was not under arrest but that they intended to collect and analyze all of the computers.
When Ms. Roseman arrived, Det. Broughton ended the conversation with Spriggs to speak with Ms. Roseman inside her house. Det. Colasuonno stayed outside with the Spriggs family, and Spriggs said he told his family that he had downloaded child pornography.
The detectives first conducted the search of the 11501 house and then the RV. Following remand, members of the Spriggs family supplied affidavits describing what occurred the day of the search. In the Spriggs family affidavits, they state that a deputy accompanying Det. Broughton placed his hand on his firearm in the "ready" position, which they perceived as a show of authority and coercion. The Spriggs family was asked to wait outside the RV during the search. According to Spriggs and the Spriggs family, when asked about the ability to search the RV and seize the computers from the RV, Det. Broughton indicated that he had a warrant and that the Spriggs' RV "was included as 'curtilage' on the 11501 property Warrant." Det. Broughton reportedly advised the Spriggs family that he could search "anything on th[e] property" while simultaneously motioning with his arms to encompass the RV and a storage shed. The Spriggs family averred that they did not believe they had any choice but to allow the detectives to search the RV.
Approximately ten minutes into the search of the RV, a deputy told Spriggs that Det. Broughton needed him inside. Det. Broughton recorded his communications with Spriggs inside the RV. Det. Broughton asked Spriggs to identify his laptop. According to Spriggs' post-remand declaration, Spriggs initially refused to answer, but eventually confirmed which laptop belonged to him and also confirmed that the files containing child pornography were downloaded to a separate hard drive. Spriggs identified his computer, various hard drives, and the computers of family members. The detectives seized the computers and hard drives.
Before examining the computers and hard drives seized from the RV, Det. Broughton obtained a separate search warrant authorizing a search of the contents and extraction of child pornography from the devices. From Spriggs' Dell computer, Det. Broughton extracted 120 video files that contained child pornography.
On February 25, 2010, Spriggs was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida and charged with a single count of knowingly receiving, by means of a computer, visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
On March 30, 2010, without the benefit of a negotiated plea agreement, Spriggs entered a plea of guilty to count one of the Indictment. Spriggs also signed and agreed to a Stipulated Factual Basis in Support of Guilty Plea admitting to knowingly receiving child pornography. He faced a statutory penalty range of five to twenty years in prison. On October 18, 2010, Spriggs was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment, which was below the applicable guideline range.
Spriggs exercised his right to direct appeal and successfully challenged an enhancement to his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines based on distribution of child pornography. United States v. Spriggs (Spriggs I), 666 F.3d 1284, 1289 (11th Cir. 2012). On April 13, 2012, Spriggs was resentenced to 126 months of imprisonment, with all other aspects of his original sentence remaining intact. Spriggs has since completed his custodial sentence.
In May 2013, with the aid of counsel, Spriggs filed his original Motion to Vacate under § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Spriggs asserted that law enforcement violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by "improperly obtaining access to him" in order to record him illegally and search areas outside the scope of the search warrant, that law enforcement violated Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by obtaining involuntary statements from him without consent and that trial counsel should have known that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial