U.S. v. Hughes

Decision Date08 April 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–1646.,09–1646.
Citation640 F.3d 428
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Jon R. HUGHES, Defendant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jeffrey W. Langholtz for appellant.Renée M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.Before TORRUELLA, SELYA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.SELYA, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Jon R. Hughes appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a “knock and talk” interview, an ensuing search, and further interrogation at a later date. His appeal presents nuanced questions concerning the nature of the interview, the voluntariness of his statements, the legitimacy of his consent to the search, and the workings of the inevitable discovery doctrine. Applying deferential clear-error review to the district court's findings of fact, we uphold the denial of the defendant's motion to suppress in all particulars. Consequently, we affirm the conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

We begin by rehearsing the raw facts as supportably found by the district court.1

On October 10, 2007, the computer crimes unit of the Maine State Police became privy to a tawdry tale: a fifteen-year-old girl, S.J., who had been the defendant's ward since age twelve, said that she had found nude photographs of herself on the defendant's computer. A detective, Laurie Lynn Northrup, interviewed S.J. on October 15. By then, S.J. was no longer living with the defendant.

During the interview, S.J. stated that, in January of 2006, she had accessed the defendant's computer and saw inappropriate images that depicted her in the bathroom. She then searched the bathroom and discovered a hidden camera. When she confronted the defendant, he sent her an apologetic e-mail and admitted that he had peered at the nude images on his computer.

Detective Northrup consulted with her supervisor, Sergeant Glen Lang. They decided to forgo a search warrant due to the staleness of S.J.'s information and, instead, to conduct a “knock and talk” interview at the defendant's residence. A “knock and talk” interview, as the appellation implies, consists of knocking on a person's door, stating the purpose of the visit, and asking the person to agree to an audience. Because of overlapping jurisdictional concerns, the troopers informed both the Knox County sheriff's office and the Secret Service of their intent.

Up until the time when they involved the sheriff's office, the state police were unaware of earlier interactions between the defendant and Dr. Scott Schiff–Slater; the two had come in contact in mid–2007, in the course of the latter's labors as the “tele-med physician” for the town of Isle au Haut (where the defendant resided). These interactions led the doctor to call the sheriff's office on more than one occasion. Those calls culminated in the receipt by the sheriff's office, on October 17, 2007, of a facsimile transmission from Dr. Schiff–Slater, attached to which was a copy of an office note memorializing the earlier series of telephone calls. Therein, the doctor had conveyed his concern that the defendant might present a risk of danger to himself or others. As a precaution, the doctor solicited the cooperation of the sheriff's office in arranging for the defendant's involuntary commitment to a psychiatric care facility. The doctor's records disclosed that the defendant had been hospitalized for depression, had suicidal tendencies, and was experiencing stress. In an apparent response to forewarning about the planned “knock and talk,” the fax stated in pertinent part:

All of this, no matter what [Hughes] says, put[s] him in my mind at extreme suicide risk after he is confronted by the state police, as well as ... extreme homicide risk, even if he states that he is fine. If he was calm in these type[s] of police proceedings, this would not make me feel that he is any less at risk for suicidal/homicidal behavior....

[I]f the state police do not physically remove him from the island after he is confronted for possible accusations of pedophilia then I believe he needs to be blue papered 2 for his own safety as well as [that of] others.

The district court found that the troopers knew of Dr. Schiff–Slater's communications with the sheriff's office when they went to see the defendant.

On October 18, a party of four—the two troopers, a deputy sheriff (Steve Johnson), and a Secret Service agent (Manning Jeter)—sojourned to the defendant's abode on Isle au Haut. Both troopers were in uniform and wore guns in holsters. Johnson and Jeter were dressed in civilian clothing and neither was carrying a visible weapon. Northrup brought along a recording device.

When the quartet arrived at the house in mid-morning, no one intended to arrest the defendant but, rather, to speak with him and then allow Johnson to escort him to a medical facility for involuntary commitment. Lang knocked, and the defendant came to the door. Lang informed him that the state police were conducting an investigation and wished to speak with him. The defendant was fully clothed and did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He freely permitted the officers to enter his home.

Lang and Northrup made it clear that the defendant was neither under arrest nor in custody. The interview took place in the living room and, with the defendant's acquiescence, was recorded. During most of the session, Lang and Northrup stayed in the living room, Jeter was in the kitchen, and Johnson wandered in and out of the house.

The defendant acknowledged that he had made video recordings of himself and his girlfriend in the bathroom. He also admitted photographing S.J. in the bathroom, but claimed that her involvement had been unintended. The troopers questioned this disclaimer, implying that the defendant had deliberately recorded the images of S.J. and transferred them to his computer.

At that juncture, the defendant said that he felt dizzy and told the troopers, for the first time, that he had not taken his antidepressant medication that day. He asked for a wet cloth, and Lang procured one. The defendant began hyperventilating and lay down on the floor. The troopers immediately called for an emergency medical technician (EMT).

The EMT who responded, Diane Barter, was the defendant's friend and neighbor. She determined that he had suffered a panic attack. The symptoms of the attack lasted for less than twenty minutes. After the symptoms had subsided, Barter confirmed that the defendant's vital signs were normal. When asked whether the defendant was [a]ll good,” Barter replied in the affirmative.

Once Barter left, the defendant asked if he could have a cigarette before the questioning resumed. The troopers escorted him outside for this purpose. While the defendant was smoking, Lang again asked him about the recorded images on his computer. The defendant demurred, stating that he would resume the conversation only after finishing his cigarette. The troopers honored the defendant's preference. When the defendant finished the smoke, he took the initiative and spontaneously stated, “Okay, back inside.” The protagonists repaired to the living room, and the interview resumed.

Lang asked the defendant to consent to a search of his home and computer. Anticipating what the troopers would find there, the defendant confessed that he had looked at pictures of young girls on the Internet. He called himself a “deviant” and expressed a fear that he would go to prison. He added that he had installed the camera in the bathroom for the purpose of photographing S.J.

These admissions were made without any prompting. In response, the troopers inquired about the location of the videotapes and DVDs on which the salacious images were stored. Instead of responding directly to this query, the defendant explained how the camera was rigged and asked if he would be going to prison. Lang assured him that he was not under arrest and told him that they did not intend to arrest him that day. Lang added, however, that the troopers did not want to leave the contraband in the defendant's possession.

The defendant clarified that he had recorded images only onto videotapes. He agreed to turn over the tapes, retrieved some of them from their hiding place in the bedroom, and handed them to the troopers.

Lang next asked the defendant to sign a consent-to-search form. The defendant voiced some uncertainty about why a formal consent was needed, saying that he could “voluntarily show [the troopers] everything.” He then asked what would happen if he refused to sign the form. Lang replied that, regardless of whether he consented, the troopers were “probably” going to take “the stuff [ ] with them. The defendant then signed the consent form. The troopers conducted a limited search, seizing two laptops (one of which was in plain view in the living room), two cameras, and several videotapes.

At the conclusion of the interview, the troopers informed the defendant that Johnson was prepared to take him to Penobscot Bay Medical Center (PBMC). When the defendant balked, Johnson handcuffed him. The defendant and the four law enforcement officers left Isle au Haut on the same boat.

Johnson brought the defendant directly to PBMC, where he was admitted. On the date of his scheduled discharge from PBMC (October 23), Lang and Northrup interviewed him in a hospital conference room. Prior to this time, the troopers had obtained a search warrant and searched the defendant's laptops in a forensically secure environment.

At PBMC, the troopers intended to question the defendant about some of the seized materials. This session, too, was recorded. At the outset, the troopers informed the defendant that he was under arrest and read him his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The defendant executed a waiver of those rights....

To continue reading

Request your trial
146 cases
  • United States v. Cruz-Rivera
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • September 15, 2021
    ...error and the ultimate legal question de novo. United States v. Campbell, 741 F.3d 251, 265 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428, 435 (1st Cir. 2011) ). Furthermore, we review "the record evidence in the light most favorable to the suppression ruling," and we can af......
  • United States v. Reyes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • January 19, 2022
    ...error and the ultimate legal question de novo. United States v. Campbell, 741 F.3d 251, 265 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428, 435 (1st Cir. 2011) ). "Given the textured nature of these inquiries," we will "proceed circumspectly and with regard for the district c......
  • United States v. Roberson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • November 15, 2021
    ...inquiring court must conduct the juridical equivalent of an archeological dig into the whole of the circumstances." United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428, 438 (1st Cir. 2011). "Pertinent factors in this totality-of-the-circumstances analysis include the defendant's ‘age, education, the leng......
  • United States v. Hallford
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • March 4, 2016
    ..."treat [ed] him nicely," according to a defense-retained psychiatrist who evaluated Hallford six months later. See United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428, 438 (1st Cir.2011). The agents made no threats or promises to Hallford and he was deprived of no essentials. See Culombe, 367 U.S. at 602......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • THE CORROSIVE EFFECT OF INEVITABLE DISCOVERY ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 171 No. 1, December 2022
    • December 1, 2022
    ...v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d 736, 744 (1st Cir. 1986)). (156) For a useful contrast within the First Circuit, see United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428, 441 (1st Cir. 2011) (discussing whether application of inevitable discovery would undercut (157) See infra note 445 and accompanying text (discu......
  • Drug crimes
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Defending Specific Crimes
    • April 29, 2020
    ...or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way’ must first” be given Miranda warnings.” United States v. Hughes , 640 F.3d 428, 434 (1st Cir. 2011) ( emphasis added ). The Defendant was deprived of his freedom the moment his license was taken away from him. He was sei......

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