U.S.A. v. Laine

• Decision Date: 31 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 01-1432,01-1432
• Citation: 270 F.3d 71
• Parties: (1st Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SEAN LAINE, Defendant, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 71

270 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2001)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SEAN LAINE, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 01-1432

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

Submitted Oct. 3, 2001

Decided October 31, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Mark L. Sisti and Twomey & Sisti Law Offices on brief for appellant.

Gretchen Leah Witt, United States Attorney, and Peter E. Papps, First Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for the United States.

Before Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges, and Singal,^* District Judge.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

A jury found defendant-appellant Sean Laine guilty of one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Laine appeals, asserting that much of the prosecution's evidence should never have seen the light of day. Finding no compelling basis for suppression, we affirm the judgment below.

The facts are straightforward. In August of 1997, local authorities received a complaint that the appellant possessed computer image files containing child pornography. The complaint was referred to the U.S. Customs Service. An investigation ensued, but was thwarted by the death of a confidential informant.

Despite this false start, the government persevered. On March 16, 1999, a customs agent (Paul Coyman) visited the appellant's home in Walpole, New Hampshire, accompanied by a uniformed police officer (Sgt. Pelletier). We discuss the details of what transpired during that visit in the pages that follow. For now, it suffices to say that the officers knocked and asked permission to enter the dwelling; that the appellant permitted them to come inside; that he thereafter allowed them to examine his computer; and that the examination revealed image files of child pornography. A forensic review subsequently revealed over one hundred files depicting minors engaged in sexual activity.

In due course, a federal grand jury returned a single-count indictment for possession of child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The appellant moved to suppress the items found at his place of abode, including the images and other information contained in the computer. The gravamen of the motion was the appellant's claim that his consent to the officers' entry had been obtained through coercion and duress (and was, therefore, involuntary).

The district court held an evidentiary hearing on November 8, 1999. Coyman testified, and the appellant submitted an affidavit. The court reserved decision. Later, it issued a thoughtful rescript in which it made detailed factual findings, determining that the appellant had invited the officers into his residence; that, after being informed that Coyman had information that he (the appellant) had downloaded child pornography, the appellant indicated that he would cooperate; and that, after describing some of the images he had downloaded, the appellant, in response to Coyman's request, led the officers to his bedroom (where the computer was located). The court further found that the computer was "up" and that Coyman noticed in plain view an icon for a program -- ACDSee -- that the appellant had mentioned as one he had used to view images. Coyman asked the appellant to click on this icon; when the appellant did so, a list of files with the extension ".jpg" appeared.¹ At Coyman's direction, the appellant opened one of the files (which depicted children engaged in sexual activity). Coyman then secured the appellant's consent to a forensic examination of his computer and the associated diskettes. The appellant signed a written consent form verifying this agreement.

The court acknowledged that the appellant's affidavit painted a different picture -- the appellant claimed, for example, that his consent had been coerced because the officers had not allowed his father to be present for the interview and had threatened to "tear the place apart" if he denied them entry or refused to produce the diskettes containing the images -- but specifically rejected the appellant's account. In reaching this conclusion, the court found credible Coyman's explicit denial that any such conduct had occurred. Then, "[l]ooking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the search of [the appellant's] residence and seizure of evidence," the court determined that the appellant's "consent to search was given voluntarily and was not the product of coercion." United States v. Laine, No. 99-075, slip op. at 7 (D.N.H. Nov. 18, 1999) (unpublished). This determination, in turn, prompted the court to deny the appellant's motion to suppress. Id. at 8.

Trial commenced on August 1, 2000. The jury found the appellant guilty as charged. The court thereafter imposed a 37-month incarcerative sentence. This appeal followed.

The appellant's cardinal claim is that the district court erred in determining that his consent was free and uncoerced. In addressing this claim, we must accept the district court's findings of fact unless those findings are shown to be clearly erroneous. United States v. Chhein, 266 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) No. 00-2230, 18 F.3d 971, 975; United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 975 (1st Cir. 1994). This deferential standard of review extends to a factual finding that consent was voluntary. Chhein, 266 F.3d at 7; United States v. Coraine, 198 F.3d 306, 308-09 (1st Cir. 1999). In contrast, the district court's rulings of law, including the court's ultimate constitutional conclusions, are subject to plenary review. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691 (1996); Zapata, 18 F.3d at 975.

The warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment are not absolutes. One recognized exception is for searches authorized by valid consent. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). When this exception is in play, the government bears the burden of showing that consent was validly obtained. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983); United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 569 (1st Cir. 1996). This typically reduces to a question of voluntariness. That question, in turn, is likely to be factbound. See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227 (noting that, in the final analysis, "the question whether a consent to a search was in fact 'voluntary' or was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances"); Chhein, 226 F.3d at 7 (similar); United States v. Kimball, 25 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1994) (similar).

In support of his attack on the lower court's finding of uncoerced consent, the appellant emphasizes two points. First, he remarks -- and the record bears out -- that the officers never told him that he had the right to withhold his consent and deny them entry to the premises. But that fact, though relevant, is not a poison pill. While the failure to inform a suspect that he has a right to refuse consent is a factor to be weighed in determining the issue of voluntariness, such an omission does not preclude a finding that consent was voluntary. See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 231, 245; Zapata, 18 F.3d at 977; United States v. Rodriguez Perez, 625 F.2d 1021, 1024 (1st Cir. 1980).

Here, the district court noted the omission but found that, under all the circumstances, the appellant's consent was nonetheless voluntary. The only real question for appellate review is whether the evidence presented at the suppression hearing fairly supports this finding. On this conflicted record, the truthfulness vel non of the witnesses necessarily comprises an important ingredient of any reasoned response to that question. Because an appellate tribunal must defer to the trial court's judgment as to witness credibility, see United States v. Patrone, 948 F.2d 813, 816 (1st Cir. 1991), we have no principled choice but to uphold the voluntariness finding. We explain briefly.

The testimony established that the appellant was in his own home, with the officers outside on the doorstep, when the question of consent was broached. It was early in the evening. The officers had knocked and identified themselves (indeed, one was in uniform), and, as the district court supportably found, they had told the appellant that they wanted to discuss something that he probably would not want to talk...