U.S. v. Runyan

Decision Date10 December 2001
Docket Number01-11207,Nos. 00-10821,s. 00-10821
Citation275 F.3d 449
Parties(5th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT BEAM RUNYAN, Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT BEAM RUNYAN, Defendant-Appellant
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

KING, Chief Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Robert Beam Runyan was convicted of sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251 and of distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. In two separate actions, Runyan appeals his conviction (No. 00-10821) and the district court's denial of his post-trial motion for a new trial (No. 01-11207). On September 24, 2001, we consolidated these two cases for the purposes of appeal. In challenging his conviction, Runyan asserts (among other claims) that the district court erred in admitting evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful pre-warrant search by law enforcement officials. We hold that portions of the pre-warrant search violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we REMAND No. 00-10821 to the district court for further findings of fact addressing whether the search warrants would have been sought and issued in the absence of the Fourth Amendment violation. We do not reach any of the other issues raised in No. 00-10821 or any of the issues raised in No. 01-11207 at this time.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Robert Runyan lived on a ranch outside Santa Anna, Texas, where he owned and operated Gammon Technologies, a computer repair and service company, from 1990 to 1998. During this time period, Runyan employed a number of local junior high and high school students to perform odd jobs at the ranch and to perform administrative tasks for Gammon Technologies.

Runyan was married to Judith Runyan ("Judith"), who has a daughter, Rickie, from a previous relationship. In January 1999, Judith left Runyan and moved in with a boyfriend in Brownwood. Runyan subsequently filed for divorce.

In June 1999, Judith made several trips to the ranch to retrieve items that she contends were her personal property. She was accompanied at different times by Rickie and other friends. Judith was aware that Runyan was not present at the ranch at these times. She was not aware that after their separation, Runyan had secured the gated entrance to the ranch with a chain and lock. Runyan had also changed the locks on the house and the barn and installed surveillance cameras on the property.

On June 17, Judith and Rickie climbed over the fence surrounding the ranch, looked through a window of the ranch house, and saw that Judith's belongings were inside. On June 18, Judith, Rickie, and a friend, Casey Giles, returned to the ranch house (again by climbing the fence surrounding the ranch) and entered the house through a breakfast-room window. After searching through the house for Judith's belongings, they entered the barn next to the house, also by climbing through a window. In the barn, Giles opened a black duffel bag and discovered that it contained pornography, compact disks ("CDs") and computer disks, a Polaroid camera with film, a vibrator, and Polaroid pictures of two individuals, one of whom appeared to be a very young teenager. Under the black bag were two waterproof ammunition boxes containing more pornography. Judith took the black bag back to her Brownwood residence.

Later that day, Judith and six of her friends reentered Runyan's ranch, this time by cutting the chain on the gate with bolt cutters. For the remainder of the day on June 18 and throughout the day on June 19 they removed items identified by Judith as belonging to her. During their search of the ranch house they found a desktop computer that Judith claimed was hers, surrounded by 3.5 inch floppy disks, CDs, and ZIP disks.1 Judith asked one of her friends, Brandie Epp ("Brandie"), to dismantle the desktop computer and to take it to Judith's Brownwood residence and reassemble it there. In addition to the computer, Brandie took the disks that were lying on the floor surrounding the computer. After reassembling the computer, Brandie viewed approximately twenty of the CDs and floppy disks that had been removed from the ranch and found that they contained images of child pornography. Brandie did not view any of the images on the ZIP disks because the necessary hardware was not connected. After viewing the images, Brandie contacted the sheriff's department. A deputy subsequently arrived, and Brandie turned over twenty-two CDs, ten ZIP disks, and eleven floppy disks to the deputy.

Over the next few weeks, Judith turned over various items found at the Runyan ranch to different law enforcement agencies. She provided the sheriff's department with additional CDs of child pornography and she gave the Santa Anna Chief of Police a 3.5 inch diskette containing child pornography. Judith also called Texas Ranger Bobby Grubbs ("Ranger Grubbs") and turned over to him the black duffel bag and pornographic materials removed from the ammunition boxes in Runyan's barn. At subsequent meetings with Ranger Grubbs on June 28 and July 7, Judith provided him with two additional disks and with Polaroid photographs that she had removed from the ranch. At some point during this time period, Judith also turned over the desktop computer to Ranger Grubbs.2

Ranger Grubbs viewed some of the disks delivered by Judith on his computer. He observed images of child pornography. On June 24, 1999, the Coleman County District Attorney went to the Sheriff's office and viewed several images as well. At this time, several of the images were printed out on a color printer and shown to members of the District Attorney's staff. An investigator in the District Attorney's office, Darla Tibbetts, tentatively identified the subject photographed in one of the images. An intern working for the District Attorney's office, Melissa Payne, was then brought to the sheriff's office to assist with the identification. She positively identified the girl in the pictures as Misty Metcalf ("Misty"), a former high school classmate.3

On June 28, 1999, upon learning that he was a potential suspect, Runyan went to meet with Ranger Grubbs. At this meeting, after he had been given Miranda warnings, Runyan stated that he found a bag of pornography at a rest stop. Runyan stated further that the bag contained CDs and other items, including a vibrator. He admitted that he viewed the materials in the bag and that, out of curiosity, he used his computer to view child pornography available on the Internet.4

On July 7, 1999, Customs Service Special Agent Rick Nuckles ("Agent Nuckles") became involved in the investigation. While at the District Attorney's office on an unrelated matter, Agent Nuckles observed agents involved in the Runyan investigation viewing images of child pornography and stated his willingness to work on the case. He was provided with all of the investigative reports, statements, and physical evidence that Judith had turned over, including the desktop computer and the disks. Agent Nuckles then performed an analysis on every piece of evidence he had received, copying the materials onto blank CDs. He examined several images from each disk and CD, including the ZIP disks. Agent Nuckles found two images of Misty, apparently taken with a digital camera or taken with a Polaroid camera and then scanned into a computer.

Also on July 7, Tibbetts and Ranger Grubbs interviewed a number of local young people, including Misty. Misty stated that Runyan hired her when she was a young teenager to perform odd jobs around his ranch and to iron clothes for him. She said that he approached her when she was fifteen about posing for nude photographs. Misty told Tibbetts that Runyan had taken sexually explicit photographs of her on numerous occasions when she was between the ages of fifteen and seventeen. She reported that Runyan had sometimes paid her approximately five dollars per photographic session and that he had promised her more money once he sold the pictures over the Internet to customers in Japan.

Agent Nuckles then filed two applications for federal search warrants, supported by his own affidavits. The first application sought a warrant to search the desktop computer and all the disks for files containing illicit images. The second application sought a warrant to search Runyan's ranch house for any and all computers, computer hardware, software, and devices. The affidavits supporting these applications included statements made by Misty and Judith to Ranger Grubbs as well as information from Runyan's voluntary statement to Ranger Grubbs. In addition, one of the affidavits also contained a statement indicating that Ranger Grubbs had conducted a "cursory" review of the computer storage media. A magistrate judge issued both warrants, and the search of Runyan's ranch house resulted in the discovery of a computer backup tape that contained one picture of child pornography.

On October 13, 1999, Runyan was indicted on six counts of child pornography charges. Runyan filed three separate motions to suppress the evidence against him, primarily contending that the pre-warrant searches of the disks conducted by the various law enforcement officials involved in the investigation violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, Runyan argued, any evidence directly or indirectly obtained from these unlawful searches should be suppressed.

The trial court held a hearing on Runyan's motions to suppress on April 20, 2000. At the close of the hearing, the trial court denied the motions, finding that the pre-warrant police searches did not violate Runyan's Fourth Amendment rights because the police did not exceed the scope...

To continue reading

Request your trial
107 cases
  • People v. Wilson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 2020
    ...with each of the four files, and the agent's own knowledge and training as a member of the ICAC task force.14 (Cf. United States v. Runyan (5th Cir. 2001) 275 F.3d 449, 463 [concluding that "police exceed the scope of a prior private search when they examine a closed container that was not ......
  • U.S. v. Runyan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 18 Abril 2002
    ...they conducted a warrantless examination of disks that the private searchers (Judith and Epp) had not examined. See United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 464 (5th Cir.2001). While we noted that the disks (and any evidence obtained as a result of the information found on the disks) were pot......
  • People v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 28 Diciembre 2020
    ...without a warrant, comparing digital data to a closed container that when opened loses all expectation of privacy. United States v. Runyan , 275 F.3d 449, 464 (C.A. 5, 2001) ; Rann v. Atchison , 689 F.3d 832, 836-837 (C.A. 7, 2012). For the reasons stated below, we find unpersuasive, in lig......
  • United States v. Wilson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 Septiembre 2021
    ...email account, cell phone, or laptop, is entirely frustrated whenever any part of the container is searched. See United States v. Runyan , 275 F.3d 449, 465 (5th Cir. 2001) ; Rann v. Atchison , 689 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2012). But this approach is squarely contrary to the Ninth Circuit's appro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • Lichtenberger, Sparks, and Wicks: the Future of the Private Search Doctrine
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 66-2, 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...the search is necessary under another exigent circumstance).22. See infra notes 101-29 and accompanying text. 23. United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 465 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Rann v. Atchison, 689 F.3d 832, 838 (7th Cir. 2012).24. See infra notes 140-214 and accompanying text.25. Se......
  • The Fourth Amendment and Computers
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Bar Journal No. 14-5, February 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...[27] See United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1045-46 (11th Cir. 2003). [28] 447 U.S. 649, 658-59 (1980) (plurality opinion). [29] 275 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001). [30] Id. at 465; see also United States v. Slanina, 283 F.3d 670, 680 (5th Cir.) (once search of certain contents of a compute......
  • AN ANALOGICAL-REASONING APPROACH FOR DETERMINING EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY IN TEXT MESSAGE CONTENT.
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 47 No. 1, March 2021
    • 22 Marzo 2021
    ...(E.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2020). (174) Id. at*3. (175) Id. at *2 (emphasis added). (176) 387 F. Supp.3d at 402 (citing United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 465 (5th Cir. (177) See Ben A. McJunkin, The Private-Search Doctrine Does Not Exist, 2018 Wise. L. REV. 971, 1024-1025 (2018) ("[W]e can rea......
  • PUNTING THE PRIVATE SEARCH DOCTRINE: How THE GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION IMPEDES FOURTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE.
    • United States
    • Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal Vol. 48 No. 1, March 2022
    • 22 Marzo 2022
    ...not view, we agree with Johnson and Sparks that O'Reilly exceeded the scope of Widner's private search."). (49) United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. (50) Id. at 453. (51) Id. (52) Id. ("Brandie did not view any of the images on the ZIP disks because the necessary hardware was not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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