United States v. Voice
| Decision Date | 09 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-CR-30059-RAL |
| Citation | 602 F.Supp.3d 1150 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Conrad GOOD VOICE Jr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota |
Kirk W. Albertson, Assistant US Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Pierre, SD, for Plaintiff.
Edward G. Albright, Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, Pierre, SD, for Defendant.
Defendant Conrad Good Voice, Jr. ("Good Voice"), filed two motions to suppress asserting his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when law enforcement entered the home where he was living to arrest him and seized certain items including a cell phone. In addition to arguing that the content on the cell phone should be suppressed, Good Voice contends the illegality of the search and detention taints any statements he subsequently made to law enforcement and to others on the phone while in custody and therefore should be suppressed. Good Voice also challenges whether law enforcement exceeded the breadth of the search warrants when they seized communications associated with Good Voice's Snapchat and Facebook accounts. For the reasons stated below, this Court denies Good Voice's motions to suppress.
On June 6, 2021, Good Voice was indicted on two counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), and 2246(2), against two children1 who had not attained the age of twelve.2 Doc. 1. The indictment stems from an investigation that was initiated on March 2, 2021, when RaeLane Searby ("Searby"), the children's aunt and guardian, took them to the Rosebud Indian Health Services Hospital ("IHS") after the two children had reported to her that they had been sexually abused by Good Voice. T. 15–16. Searby and Good Voice were in a relationship together and shared a bedroom. T. 76. IHS alerted Rosebud Sioux Tribe Law Enforcement Services ("RSTLES") which sent RSTLES Special Agent Matthew Tucker ("Tucker") to investigate. T. 15–16.
At IHS, Searby met with Tucker and informed him that the girls had told her that Good Voice "had put his private part by their butts." Ex. 2, T. 16. Searby told Tucker that A.K. might be lying in an effort to get back with her mother and that she believed Good Voice "would never do anything like that." Ex. 2, T. 16, 30–31. Tucker advised Searby that physical exams and interviews with the children would need to be conducted in Pierre, South Dakota. Ex. 2, T. 17–18, Ex 2. Searby transported the children to the Central South Dakota Child Assessment Center ("CSDCAC") in Pierre to be interviewed and medically evaluated. Ex. 2.
There, FBI Special Agents Benjamin Plante3 ("Plante") and Jordan Carlson ("Carlson") observed the child forensic interviews via closed circuit video. Ex. 2, T. 75, 115. During the interviews, A.D. and A.K. described Good Voice committing sexual acts including oral, anal and vaginal penetration. Exs. 2, 18 at 4–5, T. 18, 75. A.D. said that Good Voice used a flashlight on his phone to look at her private parts. T. 82–83. A.K. reported one sexual incident occurring just the day before, while A.D. reported she had last been abused the week prior. Ex. 18 at 4, T. 18, 75. A.D. claimed the abuse had been ongoing for two years. Exs. A, B at 43. The assessments concluded that the physical injuries present were consistent with and supported the disclosures by A.D. and A.K. Ex. 2, T. 18, 76–77, 85–86. Plante called Tucker and advised him what the girls had said and the results of the physical examinations. Ex. 2, T. 18, 76–77, 81.
Tucker made contact by phone with RSTLES Officer Gerald Dillon ("Dillon") and asked him to arrest Good Voice for aggravated sexual abuse based on the probable cause they had ascertained and to secure the scene until Tucker arrived. T. 18-19, 38, 51–52. Dillon and RSTLES Officer Drury Cook ("Cook") went to the home and Dillon knocked on the front door.4 T. 52. Good Voice opened the door, and the following conversation took place, recorded on Officer Dillon's body camera:
Ex. 6. Good Voice proceeded to turn around, stepping back into the living room and away from the open door toward his toddler-aged son sitting on a couch as Dillon entered the home. Ex. 6. Once inside the home, Dillon asked how old the child was and again asked Good Voice whether anyone else was in the home. Ex. 6, T. 39. Dillon then informed Good Voice that he needed to leave the residence to grab his phone, but that he would leave Cook in the home. Ex. 6, T. 40, 51. Dillon headed outside to his vehicle to let Tucker know about the presence of the child. Ex. 6, T. 40. After Dillon gave Tucker a status update, he returned to the living room before again leaving and waiting for Tucker to arrive outside. Ex. 6, T. 40. While inside, Dillon asked Good Voice several biographical questions and told Good Voice a special agent was on his way to speak with him about an investigation. Ex. 6, T. 39–41. Good Voice remained compliant during this time and answered the officer's questions. Ex. 6. The body camera footage shows Good Voice sitting on the couch watching television. Ex. 6.
While waiting for Tucker, Dillon made contact with the South Dakota Department of Social Services ("DSS") about the presence of the child and DSS arranged for a social worker, Megan Hawthorn ("Hawthorn"), to travel to the residence from Valentine, Nebraska. T. 20, 40–41, 47–48. Tucker arrived at the home a short time later (about 15 minutes after the initial door knock). Ex. 6. Tucker and Dillon waited about 20 minutes for Hawthorn to reach the home. Exs. 6, 8, T. 20–21. Upon Hawthorn's arrival, Tucker and Dillon entered the residence and arrested Good Voice. Exs. 2, 8, T. 20–21, 41. Law enforcement transported Good Voice to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Adult Correctional Facility ("RSTACF") where Good Voice was held on tribal assault, sexual abuse, and child abuse charges. T. 41.
During this same period of time, FBI Special Agent Carlson asked Searby (who owned the home, T. 76) to sign a consent to search form, which she did, authorizing FBI agents to carry out a "complete" search of her Sicangu Village home and to "take any items which they determine may be related to their investigation." T. 64–69, 87, Ex. 11. Plante drove from Pierre to the Sicangu Village home to conduct the search. T. 21, 77, 87. While in route, Carlson, who had continued watching the assessment interview with A.D. when Plante left to conduct the search, called and informed Plante that A.D. said Good Voice had used a flashlight on his phone to look at her private parts. T. 81-83, 92. Plante searched the residence and seized several items including a black cell phone in the bedroom Good Voice shared with Searby. T. 76-77, 89, 92, 94-97, 112, Ex. 12, 13. Following the search, Plante and Tucker met with Good Voice, but Good Voice chose not to answer any questions or provide a DNA buccal sample.6 T. 33, 98.
A follow up interview with A.D. was conducted at CSDCAC on March 9, 2021. Exs. 16, 17, T. 98-100. Plante arranged the interview because he wanted A.D. to clarify some of her earlier statements. T. 99-100. During the interview, A.D. recalled being stomach down on a bed in the home with Good Voice on top of her. Ex. 16, T. 103. According to A.D., Good Voice got up, retrieved his black phone off a charger next to him, kneeled behind her, and pointed the flashlight toward her "private part" for "a couple seconds" or "like half a minute." Exs. 16, 17 at 6. After using the phone,7 according to A.D., Good Voice plugged it back in and then continued to sexually assault her. Exs. 16, 17 at 6, T. 103.
When asked if Good Voice would ever take pictures or videos with his phone, A.D. answered "hm-mm" (negative). Exs. 16, 17 at 4–7, T. 101. After the interviewer confirmed the answer was a negative, A.D. explained "Cause, I don't hear the um, clicking um, like when he's taking the picture." Exs. 16, 17 at 7, T. 101. The interviewer replied, Exs. 16, 17 at 7, T. 101. A.D. responded "mm-hmm" (affirmative). Exs. 16, 17 at 7, T. 101.
Using this information, Plante applied for, and received, a warrant to search the phone that officers seized during their search of the Sicangu Village residence. Ex. 18, 19, T. 107. Examination of the phone led to more information,8 and in turn, to search warrant applications for Good Voice's Facebook and Snapchat accounts. Ex. 20–23, T. 107-09. The federal magistrate judge found that probable cause existed and granted the corresponding warrants. T. 108–09.
After Good Voice's indictment, he moved to suppress (1) statements made during and after his arrest and (2) evidence obtained from his phone and social media accounts. Docs. 48, 53. The government opposed those motions. Docs. 50, 57.
United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno held an evidentiary hearing and issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Good Voice's Motions to Suppress be denied. Doc. 79. Good Voice filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. 81. For the reasons set forth below, and based on a full, de novo review of the files, motion hearing transcript and records, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 79. Good Voice's Motions to Suppress, Docs. 48, 53, are denied.
In considering a magistrate judge's recommendation on a dispositive matter, such as a motion to suppress evidence, a district court must make a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or ... recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial