United States v. Ricks, CASE NUMBER 4:18-CR-00197-MAC-CAN
| Decision Date | 28 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | CASE NUMBER 4:18-CR-00197-MAC-CAN |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HAYDEN RICKS(1) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Hayden Ricks's Motion to Suppress [Dkt. 23]. On March 19, 2019, the undersigned conducted a full evidentiary hearing and heard argument from both the Government and Defendant on the pending Motion to Suppress. After considering the Motion, all relevant filings and evidence, as well as the argument presented at hearing, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Dkt. 23] be DENIED.
On October 10, 2018, Defendant was indicted for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (Possession of Child Pornography) [Dkt. 1]. Count One charges that:
Between on or about August 23, 2018, and on or about September 13, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, [Defendant] did knowingly possess and did knowingly access with intent to view material, namely, an iPhone 8 cellular phone, model A1905 and bearing IMEI number 359496089174087, that contained images of child pornography, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2256(8), involving a prepubescent minor and a minor who had not attained 12 years of age, that had been shipped and transported using any means and facility of interstate and foreign commerce; that had been shipped and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by compute; and that had been produced using materials that had been mailed and shipped and transported in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including by computer. . . . In violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).
On March 4, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Suppress, seeking suppression of: "(1) the interview/interrogation of the Defendant that was conducted by law enforcement officers on or about September 13, 2018, at the Collin County Courthouse and any and all information obtained therefrom, including passwords or passcodes and all recordings either audio or video made of the interview itself; [and] (2) any and all evidence obtained or derived from the search of the Defendant's cell phone conducted by law enforcement pursuant to a search warrant which required the use of the illegally obtained passwords or passcodes" [Dkt. 23 at 1-2]. The Government filed a Response on March 12, 2019 [Dkt. 26]. The Court set Defendant's Motion for Hearing. At Hearing, on March 19, 2019, the Government put on Investigator Christopher Meehan and admitted one exhibit.1 Defendant testified and also admitted one exhibit at Hearing.2
The underlying facts relevant to Defendant's Motion to Suppress are summarized as set forth below.
In July 2012, Defendant was originally indicted with a violation of Texas Penal Code § 43.26(a) (Possession Promotion of Child Pornography). On March 13, 2013, the 366th District Court in Collin County, Texas placed Defendant on community supervision for a period of five (5) years and ordered Defendant's adjudication to be deferred. After several described difficulties with his community supervision, Defendant's supervision was extended and as a result, Defendant remained under supervision in September 2018. On or about September 13, 2018, the Defendanthad a scheduled visit with his probation officer and a court appearance at the Collin County Courthouse in connection with his state case for possession of child pornography. Defendant first reported to his supervising probation officer. During such visit, the probation officer looked at Defendant's cellular phone, observing internet history searches regarding pornography involving "young" or "teen" boys, and purported images of child pornography, specifically underage nude males. A term of Defendant's deferred adjudication reads: [Dkt 26-1 at 2]. The probation officer asked Defendant about the search history, but did not ask or otherwise inquire about the images of suspected child pornography. After Defendant left, the officer called Collin County Sheriff's Office Investigator Lanier, and advised what he observed on Defendant's phone and notified Lanier that Defendant was present at the Collin County Courthouse located near the Sheriff's Office. Lanier and Collin County Sheriff's Office Investigator Christopher Meehan, and FBI Special Agent Jennifer Mullican, dressed in plain clothes, immediately walked to the courthouse, which is in close physical proximity to the Sheriff's Office. Meehan, not having previously interacted with Defendant or having any other knowledge of Defendant save for the aforementioned phone conversation with the probation officer, asked the court bailiff to point out Defendant. Investigator Meehan testified that the bailiff told Meehan that Defendant had just left the courtroom, but that she would contact Defendant and ask him to return [Dkt. 30 at 29-31]. In the meantime, Meehan secured one of the conference rooms located outside of the courtroom.
Defendant testified that after he left the courtroom, he was waiting for his ride from the courthouse when he received a call from Mr. Shapiro's office that he needed to return to the courtroom because of a clerical error in the court's paperwork [Dkt. 30 at 61-62]. Defendant returned to the courtroom, where instead of being presented with any paperwork to sign, he testified that encountered Meehan, Lanier, and Mullican. Meehan asked Defendant if he would be willing to speak with them, to which Defendant agreed. The three officers, Defendant, and Defendant's (small) dog then walked into the conference room.
The entire interview was recorded on Meehan's body camera. It is undisputed that Defendant was not provided any Miranda warnings. The interaction lasted around 20 minutes. Defendant is shown sitting around a table with the officers. The door to the conference room was not locked; in fact, during the interview, the conference is interrupted at least twice by individuals seeking to use the room or speak with Defendant. Investigator Meehan and Defendant both testified that to reach the door to exit the room, Defendant, who chose his seat, would have to pass one of the officers [Dkt. 30 at 16, 35-36 64-65]. During the interview, Defendant was not handcuffed and was not touched by any of the three officers. Meehan testified that his purpose in speaking to Defendant was to investigate the information provided to him by Defendant's probation officer and to determine if the images on the phone were images of child pornography, as individuals untrained in internet crimes against children often incorrectly believe images to constitute child pornography [Dkt. 30 at 28-29].
Upon entering the room, Meehan asked Defendant if he had visited his probation officer that day and whether his probation officer had asked to look at his phone; after answering both questions in the affirmative, without prompting from the officers, Defendant began to discuss thesearch history on his phone and tell the officers that his brother searched for the pornographic images on a different device that is connected to his phone. When asked if Meehan may look through his phone, Defendant handed his unlocked phone to Meehan [Dkt. 30 at 20-21]. In Defendant's view, Meehan proceeded to look through the images on the phone. While Meehan searched through the phone, finding images of child pornography (which are clearly visible and readily identifiable on the bodycam footage), Mullican and Lanier casually discussed Defendant's dog, as well as Defendant's supervision and counseling.
Meehan showed certain of the pornographic images found on the phone to Defendant and asked Defendant again where the images came from; when Defendant persisted in his assertion that his teenaged brother obtained such images, Meehan informed Defendant that they were going to pull his brother out of his high school class and question him regarding the images. Meehan also pointed out that the images on the phone were deleted from the device and were not located in a device-sharing drive. Defendant then stated that he struggled with an addiction to prescription medication, and sometimes looked at images like those located on his phone, but that he was working through these issues with his therapist.
Approximately 14 minutes into the interview, attorney Todd Shapiro entered the conference room, stating he represented Defendant on pending state charges. Meehan testified that he was wholly unaware that Defendant had an attorney, and was surprised when Shapiro represented himself as such given that Defendant was on probation [Dkt. 30 at 22]. Notably, per review of the body camera footage, at no point during the interview did Defendant notify the officers that he was represented by counsel. In fact, Shapiro, upon his entry to the room, asked Defendant if had advised the officers he had counsel, to which Defendant responded no, and Shapiro then further inquired numerous times why Defendant did not tell the officers that he hadan attorney. Meehan explained the call from the probation officer about images on the phone. When asked by Shapiro whether Defendant was under arrest, Meehan replied that he was "still looking," and testified at Hearing that he intended to speak with the brother and wanted to take a closer look at some of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial