United States v. Martin, 5:15-CR-86-FL
| Decision Date | 18 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5:15-CR-86-FL,5:15-CR-86-FL |
| Citation | 180 F.Supp.3d 373 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | United States of America, v. Jeremy Randolph Martin, Defendant. |
Carrie Dean Randa, U.S. Attorney's Office, Raleigh, NC, for United States of America.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (DE 38). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b), United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II entered a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), wherein it is recommended that defendant's motion be denied. (DE 44). Defendant timely objected to the magistrate's recommendation and the government's time for response has passed. For the reasons given more specifically below, the court adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge, albeit on different grounds, and denies defendant's motion.
On March 18, 2015, a grand jury returned a two count indictment charging defendant with receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)
; and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
Defendant filed the instant motion to suppress on December 16, 2015. Therein, defendant raises three arguments. Defendant first argues that he was the subject of an unconstitutional search, and that all the evidence subsequently obtained, including evidence obtained by warrantless seizure and statements made by defendant, is fruit of the poisonous tree. In the alternative, defendant argues certain physical evidence should be suppressed where that evidence was obtained from his laptop computer, cell phone, and USB thumb drive, all of which allegedly were illegally seized without a warrant and without exigent circumstances to support a warrantless seizure. Finally, defendant argues that certain incriminating statements made after that warrantless seizure also should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree, where the seizure unlawfully extended defendant's detention.
The court referred defendant's motion for M&R on December 18, 2015. The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion on January 20, 2016. M&R entered on February 3, 2016. Therein, the magistrate recommends that the court deny defendant's motion to suppress. The magistrate judge bases his recommendation on two, independent grounds. First, the M&R recommends denying defendant's motion as untimely, where it was filed some two weeks after the Rule 12(c) period set by the court and without good cause. Second, the M&R recommends denying defendant's motion on the merits. Defendant's timely objections followed on February 17, 2016.
The facts preceding defendant's indictment may be summarized as follows. Defendant is a convicted sex offender who, on February 21, 2014, was released from the State of North Carolina's custody subject to the following pertinent restriction: “submit at reasonable times to searches of [his] person, premises, or any vehicle under [his] control by [his] supervising [probation] officer for purposes reasonably related to [his] supervision.” (DE 38-2).
On May 21, 2014, Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) a probable violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252
. In particular, Microsoft reported that an account registered with its cloud storage service, OneDrive, had been used to upload at least four potentially pornographic images depicting minors. (DE 38-3). Microsoft provided NCMEC with the email address tied to the OneDrive account in question, howlingwolf.martin7072@gmail.com; the name in which the account was registered, Jeremy Martin; the internet protocol address of the device used to transmit the images; and copies of the images themselves.
On May 22, 2014, the NCMEC reported to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (“SBI”) the probable criminal conduct. Using the information supplied by Microsoft in conjunction with internet and law enforcement database searches, the SBI and the Raleigh Police Department (“RPD”) positively identified “Jeremy Martin,” the owner of the OneDrive account, as defendant. RPD Detective Ouellette (“Ouellette”) identified defendant as a sex offender registered in North Carolina, and identified his address as the South Wilmington Street Center, a shelter for homeless men in Raleigh.
On May 30, 2014, Ouellette prepared and obtained a search warrant for the OneDrive account in question. That search warrant was served on Microsoft the same day, and Microsoft provided RPD with the results of that search warrant on July 11, 2014. Those results included the four allegedly pornographic images originally reported to NCMEC, as well as images that Ouellette believed to be of defendant. In addition, the results of the search warrant informed Ouellette that the images had been uploaded using a computer running Microsoft's “Windows” operating system.
When Ouellette arrived at work on the morning of July 25, 2014, he opened an email, dated July 24, 2014, from another RPD officer that piqued his interest in finding defendant. The email informed Ouellette of a police report from July 24, 2014, which connected defendant to a laptop computer and child pornography. In particular, on the evening of July 24, defendant had become upset because another resident of the South Wilmington Street Center, who also was a convicted sex offender, had unauthorizedly used defendant's laptop. The incident had drawn the attention of law enforcement and, at the time, defendant reported to the investigating RPD officer that he was afraid the unauthorized user would use his computer to look at child pornography. After reviewing the report, Ouellette became convinced that if he did not find defendant soon, that defendant would overwrite the files on, or outright destroy, his computer as a result of the July 24 incident.
That same morning, shortly after reading the email, Ouellette contacted defendant's probation officers (“Murphy” and “Morris”). Murphy and Morris confirmed defendant's living arrangement at the South Wilmington Street Center and agreed to meet Ouellette there. However, after arriving, Ouellette, Murphy, and Morris learned that defendant had departed the South Wilmington Street Center for the day.1
Ouellette, Murphy, and Morris searched for defendant in downtown Raleigh. Eventually, with the help of additional RPD officers, Ouellette, Murphy, and Morris located defendant at a soup kitchen in Raleigh. Murphy and Morris reminded defendant that he was required to submit to warrantless searches as a condition of his pretrial release and subsequently searched defendant. Murphy and Morris discovered the thumb drive on defendant and turned that item over to Ouellette. Meanwhile, Ouellette observed defendant's laptop lying on the ground and seized it. During Murphy and Morris's search of defendant's person, the RPD officer that previously had found defendant at the soup kitchen located defendant's cell phone inside and brought it out to Ouellette. There is no evidence that Ouellette, Murphy, or Morris specifically had asked defendant about child pornography before Murphy and Morris searched defendant or before Ouellette seized his personal items.
Following Murphy and Morris's search of defendant's person and Ouellette's seizure of his effects, Ouellette asked defendant if he would be willing to discuss “suspicious activity over the internet that was traced back to him.” (DE 38-4, 4). Defendant agreed and subsequently confessed to downloading child pornography and storing it on his computer. In particular, defendant admitted that he owned the email address howlingwolf.martin7072@gmail.com, he was the owner of the OneDrive account, and that he had downloaded child pornography. Defendant further explained that his OneDrive account automatically backed up pictures saved to his computer and also identified one of the images provided to NCMEC by Microsoft as one he previously had downloaded. Following this conversation, defendant accompanied Murphy and Morris to the South Wilmington Street Center, where the probation officers searched a storage locker defendant maintained there.
On December 2, 2014, Ouellette obtained a search warrant for defendant's laptop and cell phone. Execution of that search warrant uncovered child pornography.
The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's M&R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
. The court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005) ; Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
.
Defendant concedes that Murphy and Morris's search was constitutional.3 However, defendant maintains that Ouellette's seizure of his personal effects violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment states that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV
. The “most basic principle” of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is that warrantless seizures “are presumptively unconstitutional.” See United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolder v. Merritt
...enforcement may not seize a suspect's property without a warrant, even where probable cause to do so exists. United States v. Martin, 180 F. Supp. 3d 373, 378 (E.D.N.C. 2016). More specifically, "a 'seizure' of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's ......
- Yarnall v. Phila. Sch. Dist.