United States v. Christensen

• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: James E. Shadid Chief United States District Judge
• Decision Date: 14 January 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 17-cr-20037-JES-JEH
• Citation: United States v. Christensen, Case No. 17-cr-20037-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill. Jan 14, 2019)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRENDT A. CHRISTENSEN, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRENDT A. CHRISTENSEN, Defendant.

Case No. 17-cr-20037-JES-JEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

January 14, 2019

ORDER AND OPINION

Now before the Court is Defendant Brendt A. Christensen's Motion (Doc. 100) to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to the Illegal Search of Defendant's Apartment on June 15, 2017. The United States has filed a Response (Doc. 147), and Defendant has filed a Reply (Doc. 173). A hearing was held on December 17 and 18, 2018. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion (Doc. 100) is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Brendt A. Christensen was arrested by federal agents on June 30, 2017, pursuant to a criminal complaint which charged him with the kidnapping of Yingying Zhang, a female Chinese national, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). Doc. 1. Christensen was later indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in the Urbana Division of the Central District of Illinois. See Doc. 13 (Indictment), Doc. 26 (Superseding Indictment). The Superseding Indictment charged Christensen with kidnapping resulting in death, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) (Count 1), and with making false statements to FBI agents investigating Ms. Zhang's disappearance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (Counts 2, 3). Doc. 26. The Superseding Indictment returned by the grand jury also included a notice of special findings regarding the nature of the offense charged in Count 1, including that the death of the victim was intentional, that it occurred during the commission of kidnapping, that it was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, and that Defendant committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation. Id. The special findings alleged in the Superseding Indictment made the case eligible for capital punishment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et seq. On January 19, 2018, the United States filed its Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death ("NOI"). Doc. 54; see also 18 U.S.C. §3593(a).

This Motion concerns the late hours of June 14, 2017, about two weeks before Defendant's arrest. The parties agree that two agents had previously gone to Defendant's apartment on June 12, 2017 and had spoken with Mr. Christensen and his then-wife, Ms. Zortman,¹ in their living room about Ms. Zhang's disappearance. At that meeting, both Defendant and Ms. Zortman provided their phone numbers and generally cooperated, allowing the agents to take a cursory look around the apartment and around the car outside. The parties also agree that on June 14, 2017, FBI Special Agents and University of Illinois Police Detectives went to Defendant's apartment around 11:45 p.m., seeking Defendant's cooperation in executing a search warrant for Defendant's car. Law enforcement officers searched Defendant's apartment that night. The parties dispute the circumstances of that search.

According to Defendant's Motion, the law enforcement officers knocked on the door, awakening Defendant and Ms. Zortman, and proceeded to enter the apartment without being invited. Ms. Zortman was nude at the time, and she went into a bedroom to put on a bathrobe. When she returned, Defendant was being led away, and seven agents remained in the apartment "taking photographs and going through her and her husband's belongings." Doc. 100, at 2.Special Agents Tenaglia and Huckstadt interviewed Ms. Zortman for about two hours, and then secured her signature on a Consent to Search form around 1:45 a.m., at which point "the search was approximately two thirds' complete." Id. Defendant asserts that Ms. Zortman did not know she was allowed to refuse to permit law enforcement to search her home. Id. at 3.

According to Ms. Zortman's testimony at the evidentiary hearing on this matter, agents awoke her around midnight by knocking on the door. Defendant went to answer the door, and when she came out into the hallway to investigate, agents were standing in the hallway shining flashlights into the residence, although Defendant had turned on a hall lamp. She asked who they were, and they said they were FBI, and that they had a search warrant for Mr. Christensen's car. She was nude at the time. An agent asked her to put some clothes on, so she went into the bedroom alone and put on a robe. When she came back out, agents said they wanted to take Mr. Christensen in for questioning. He said that he didn't know what he should do, and Ms. Zortman advised him that he should probably go with them. He left with a few agents within about five minutes of the initial knock on the door. Then, multiple agents started going through her belongings, taking pictures, and taking things away. Ms. Zortman testified that she was never overtly asked for permission, and that she did not actively object because she did not believe she had a choice. Two agents, Special Agent Tenaglia and someone else, sat down with her at the kitchen table and asked her questions for about two hours. At some point, the interviewing agents asked if they could look around and take some pictures, and Ms. Zortman said "sure." During the interview, she volunteered some information that she wasn't asked for, and she produced a bank statement that she allowed agents to photograph. At the end of the interview, the agents presented Ms. Zortman with a consent form for the search. She claims that they did not read it aloud to her, she did not really process it when she looked at it, she did not know she could refuse to sign it,and the search was already complete when she did sign it. After she had signed the consent form, she claims that an agent picked up a pair of sunglasses nearby and asked to take a picture of it. She agreed, and the agent took the sunglasses with him.

According to the United States, law enforcement officers did knock on the door, but only after attempting to reach Defendant by phone several times. The officers were attempting to contact Defendant so that he could give them the keys to his car and they could execute their search warrant for his car. When Defendant answered the door to his apartment, he agreed to discuss the search warrant, opened the door fully, and allowed the agents inside. His wife then walked into the living room nude, and initially declined the agents' request that she put some clothes on. Doc. 147, at 4. Special Agent Manganaro asked Defendant if he would be willing to talk with the FBI agents at their office. After conferring with his wife, Defendant agreed to go to the FBI office to talk. Two agents remained at the apartment, and the rest departed with Defendant. The only conceivable "searches" that occurred prior to Ms. Zortman's written consent were when a female agent accompanied Ms. Zortman to the bedroom where she got a robe, and when an agent briefly checked each room for other people. Id. at 6. The two agents who remained with Ms. Zortman interviewed her for over an hour, and then asked her if she would consent to a search of the residence. She agreed, signing a form that documented her consent. Only then did the search begin, for which some FBI agents returned to the apartment. Id.

According to the six FBI agents who testified at the evidentiary hearing, they initially tried calling Defendant at the number he had previously provided. When he did not answer, they knocked on his door until he opened it. They were aware that it was a late hour, but the search warrant for Defendant's car specifically authorized them to execute the warrant at any time ofday or night. When Defendant opened the apartment door, they showed him identification and asked if they could come in and talk. He agreed, opened the door, and stepped aside to let the agents through. There was no yelling, no pushing, and no shining of flashlights. Agents did perform a preliminary visual sweep of the apartment to make sure there were no other people unaccounted for. When agents came in, Ms. Zortman was standing near the hallway, naked, with her hands on her hips. Special Agent Hill asked her to put some clothes on, and she initially declined. When he asked again, she went into a bedroom, and Special Agent Tenaglia accompanied her. Ms. Zortman picked a robe to put on, Special Agent Tenaglia checked the pockets of the robe, then gave it to Ms. Zortman. When they returned to the main entryway, agents were asking Defendant if he would be willing to come to the FBI office for an interview. The reason they wanted to interview him at the office instead of in the home was because of the audio/video equipment available at the FBI office to record the interview. Defendant said to Ms. Zortman that, in these situations, people say to get a lawyer. He asked her what she thought he should do, and she advised him to go with the agents. Defendant got dressed, put shoes on, and left with Special Agent Manganaro. He was not handcuffed, no weapons were displayed, and all of the remaining agents except Special Agent Tenaglia and Special Agent Huckstadt left the apartment when Defendant did. They waited outside, not visible from the apartment, for about two hours while Special Agents Tenaglia and Huckstadt spoke with Ms. Zortman.

According to Special Agents Tenaglia and Huckstadt, Ms. Zortman was very cooperative. She agreed to be interviewed without hesitation, and she did not appear scared or nervous to them. They did not use any tricks or ruses in their conversation with her, and she generally led the conversation. They offered her breaks, which she took sometimes. At one point, the agents even acknowledged that it was late and they could resume another time, but Ms. Zortman wantedto keep going. She discussed very personal information with them, and actively got up to provide information that might be useful to the agents, including her bank statement and a book she thought Defendant had been reading. At the end of the interview, the agents asked Ms. Zortman if she would consent to a search of the apartment, and she said yes. She signed a...