United States v. Ashley Anders Bishop
683 F. App'x 899
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bishop, a convicted sex offender (attempted lewd and lascivious molestation of a child), was on probation with conditions requiring warrantless searches and restricting internet/electronic media use.
- Deputies seized an iPhone after Bishop’s arrest on a probation warrant; Montgomery applied for a warrant alleging Bishop had an iPhone and likely used an unregistered email for internet/Apple services.
- The first warrant affidavit did not expressly link the iPhone to criminal activity; during the warrant search an apparent child-pornography image was observed, leading to a second warrant and discovery of ~70 images; a second phone later yielded more images.
- Bishop was indicted federally for possession and receipt of child pornography, moved to suppress evidence from the phone-searches, sought voir dire questions about juror impartiality given his prior conviction, moved in limine to exclude the name/nature of the prior conviction, and challenged a 280-month sentence (100 months above the guidelines).
- The district court denied suppression (probable cause/good faith/inevitable-discovery alternative), allowed evidence of the prior conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 414/403, limited voir dire but questioned jurors about graphic content and impartiality, and imposed an upward variance to 280 months; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Bishop's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to suppress: validity of first search-warrant affidavit | Affidavit lacked probable cause tying iPhone to criminal activity; resulting evidence is fruit of poisonous tree | Affidavit plus officers’ knowledge justified warrant; alternatively good-faith or inevitable-discovery applies because probation officers had authorized a warrantless search | Affidavit insufficient for probable cause, but suppression denied under inevitable-discovery (warrantless search for probation violation was actively pursued and would likely have found the images) |
| Voir dire: asking jurors about prior conviction | Requested specific question whether prior conviction for child sex offense would impair impartiality; argued general questioning was inadequate | Court’s general inquiry about prejudice from nature of charges and follow-ups to self-reported jurors was sufficient | No abuse of discretion; overall voir dire reasonably ensured discovery of prejudices |
| Motion in limine: excluding name/nature of prior conviction | Admission of the specific prior-offense name would be unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded; willing to stipulate existence of a conviction | Prior conviction is admissible under Rule 414 and relevant to intent, lack of mistake, and identity; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice | No abuse of discretion: prior conviction admissible under Rule 414 and Rule 403 balancing; naming the offense preserved probative value |
| Sentencing: substantive reasonableness of 280-month term | Upward variance improperly relied on prior conviction already accounted for in guidelines and mandatory minimum | District court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors (recidivism risk, instant conduct, deterrence, public protection) and gave permissible weight to prior conduct | Sentence substantively reasonable; no abuse of discretion in upward variance given individualized §3553(a) analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause inquiry requires practical, common-sense decision)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery doctrine)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (reasonableness of warrantless searches of probationers under diminished privacy)
- United States v. Yuknavich, 419 F.3d 1302 (Eleventh Circuit extension of Knights where internet restrictions diminish privacy)
- United States v. Woods, 684 F.3d 1045 (Rule 414 covers child-pornography offenses as child-molestation evidence)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (deference to district court on variances; justification for major variance)
- United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249 (courts may weigh individualized facts and consider factors already used in guideline calculations)
- United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308 (affidavit must link place to be searched and criminal activity)