USA v. ALLEN, 09-50283.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSTARRETT, District Judge:
Citation625 F.3d 830
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Roger ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 09-50283.,09-50283.
Decision Date04 November 2010

625 F.3d 830

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
David Roger ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50283.

United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 4, 2010.

625 F.3d 831


625 F.3d 832


625 F.3d 833

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Ellen A. Lockwood (argued), Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, TX, for U.S.

Marcia Jean Silvers (argued), Joseph S. Rosenbaum, Miami, FL, for Allen.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Before JOLLY and GARZA, Circuit Judges, and STARRETT 1 , District Judge.

STARRETT, District Judge:

David Roger Allen (Allen) appeals the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized in an allegedly illegal search. He argues the search warrant was overbroad, lacked particularity, was based on stale information and was not supported by probable cause. Allen, a college professor and first time offender, was indicted by a federal grand jury on May 28, 2008. The indictment charged Allen with two Counts of Shipping by Computer, Visual Depictions of Minors Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct (Counts One and Two) and another Count charging Receiving Matter Containing Visual Depictions of Minors Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct (Count Three).

Allen filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant on the basis that the search warrant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it lacked particularity and was not supported by probable cause. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the Motion to Suppress and excluded, as irrelevant, the testimony of a defense witness offered in support of the motion. The district court later entered a written order memorializing the denial of the motion.

On September 3, 2008, following denial of his motion to suppress, Allen pled guilty to Count Three of the Indictment pursuant to a plea agreement. In the plea agreement, Allen waived his right to appeal the conviction or sentence, but reserved the right to appeal the motion to suppress and any and all evidentiary rulings made during the hearing on the motion to suppress. The remaining two counts were dismissed.

As set forth in the Factual Basis filed in support of the guilty plea, the following occurred:

In July of 2006 Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) identified an individual in Oregon by the name of Jeremy Rice. A forensic examination of Rice's computer reveal[ed] over 1,800 images depicting minors engaging

625 F.3d 834

in sexually explic[i]t conduct. Rice was found to exchange or share those files using a Google program called Hello. Rice was found to have exchanged these child pornography images with an individual later identified as Jerry Mikowski of Michigan. Mikowski's computer was seized on or about March 29, 2007, during the execution of a court authorized search warrant. A forensic examination of Mikowski's computer revealed approximately 2,000 images of child pornography. A list of Mikowski's Google Hello “friends” included “mrhyde6988”. A subsequent investigation revealed “mrhyde6988” to be this defendant. A file found on Mikowski's computer entitled “from mrhyde6988” contained two images of minor females, the reviewing Magistrate Judge found these images to depict minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, to wit: the lascivious exhibition of the genitalia of these children.

On or about May 15, 2008, ICE Agents executed a court authorized search warrant at the defendant's residence. Several computers and external hard drives were seized. A forensic examination of the defendant's computer revealed approximately 3,300 images of child pornography, of those approximately 40 images, including duplicates, involved depictions of children involved in “bondage”, a form of sadomasochism, and approximately two depict children involved in beastiality [ sic]. The children depicted in these images vary in age from infancy to approximately 15 years of age.

On or about December 13, 2006, the defendant shared images with Mikowski, known to him as “candyman”. Additionally, on or about February 22, 2007, the defendant also used the Google Hello program on his computer to send several images to an individual known only as “lilangel55555”. During the investigation, Agents discovered that, in addition to receiving child pornography images, the defendant also shipped and transported child pornography images in interstate commerce. These images were sent using the Google Hello program.

Allen was sentenced on Count Three to 121 months imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release. He subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Specifically, Allen contends that the search warrant lacked particularity, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and was based on stale information, over-broad, and not supported by probable cause. Allen further contends that the two images found on the Michigan computer did not depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and thus were insufficient to provide the magistrate judge with a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed to issue the warrant. Finally, Allen appeals the exclusion of testimony at the suppression hearing.


[1] [2] When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the warrant or the reasonableness of an officer's reliance on a warrant de novo. United States v. Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 406 (5th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Kelley, 140 F.3d 596, 601 (5th Cir.1998)). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, the United States. United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir.1997).

[3] The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment's particularity

625 F.3d 835

requirement demands that the place to be searched and the items to be seized be described with sufficient particularity so as to leave “nothing ... to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927); Williams v. Kunze, 806 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir.1986) (“The items to be seized must be described with sufficient particularity such that the executing officer is left with no discretion to decide what may be seized.”). See also United States v. Christine, 687 F.2d 749, 752 (3d Cir.1982) (“The particularity requirement ‘makes general searches ... impossible.’ ” (quoting Marron, 275 U.S. at 196, 48 S.Ct. 74)).

[4] [5] [6] “A general order to explore and rummage through a person's belongings is not permitted.” United States v. Cook, 657 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept.1981). “The uniformly applied rule is that a search conducted pursuant to a warrant that fails to conform to the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment is unconstitutional.” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 559, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) (quoting Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 988 n. 5, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984) (internal citations omitted)). “When the Government conducts a search pursuant to a warrant that does not particularly describe the things to be seized, the appropriate remedy is for the court to exclude from the evidence in a later criminal action the items improperly taken.” Cook, 657 F.2d at 734.

[7] [8] [9] [10] This Court conducts a two-part inquiry to determine whether a seizure conducted pursuant to a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. First, we ask whether the seizure falls within the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920-21, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984); Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407. The good-faith inquiry is confined “to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 n. 23, 104 S.Ct. 3405. Thus, under the good-faith exception, if the evidence was obtained by law enforcement officers who relied on the warrant in objectively reasonable good-faith, then the evidence obtained during the search is admissible. United States v. Davis, 226 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Shugart, 117 F.3d 838, 843 (5th Cir.1997)). This is true even if the evidence in the affidavit on which the warrant was based was not sufficient to establish probable cause. Id. If the good-faith exception applies, this court affirms the district court's decision denying the motion to suppress. Id. If the good-faith exception does not apply, then this court goes to the second step and determines whether the magistrate issuing the warrant had a “substantial basis for believing there was probable cause for the search.” Id. (citing Cherna, 184 F.3d at 407).


[11] At the suppression hearing, and in his motion to suppress, Allen argued that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not be applied because the warrant was overly broad and failed the particularity requirement and that no reasonable officer should have relied on the validity of the warrant. Allen also argued that the warrant was so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer would have believed the warrant was valid.

The Government concedes that the warrant was not sufficiently particularized and that the attachment detailing the items to be seized was not incorporated by reference in the warrant. Nevertheless, the

625 F.3d 836

Government contends that, under the circumstances, the agents involved in the search reasonably believed that the warrant was valid because the warrant application, affidavit, and attachments had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
136 cases
  • United States v. Coleman
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • May 18, 2021
    ...a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover wrongdoing." Brown , 567 F. App'x at 283 (quoting United States v. Allen , 625 F.3d 830, 840 (5th Cir. 2010) ). "Although we accord great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause, we will not defer to a warran......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 14, 2011
    ...the particular facts of the case, including the nature of the criminal activity and the type of evidence sought.” United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 842 (5th Cir.2010). Facts indicating ongoing criminal activity have long been recognized as diminishing the importance of establishing a sp......
  • United States v. Graves, Criminal Action No. 06–95.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • June 27, 2013
    ...that an officer could not reasonably rely on it. See United States v. Hamilton, 591 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir.2009). 5.Compare Virgin Islands v. John, 654 F.3d 412 (3d Cir.2011)with United S......
  • United States v. Sanjar, 15-20025
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 30, 2017
    ...authorizing the warrant, and not the agents executing it, should be deciding which items may be seized. United States v. Allen , 625 F.3d 830, 834–35 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Marron v. United States , 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927) ). Generic language may satisfy this "p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...of the warrant in no way diminished the likelihood that the phones would contain incriminating evidence.”); United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 842–43 (5th Cir. 2010) (f‌inding an eighteen-month delay between when defendant sent child pornography images through a peer-to-peer networking s......

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