United States v. Cameron
699 F.3d 621
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Cameron was convicted by bench trial in the District of Maine on thirteen counts involving child pornography.
- Pretrial motions challenged: (a) indictment sufficiency/venue, (b) suppression of Yahoo! search evidence, (c) Confrontation Clause for Yahoo!, Google, and NCMEC materials, and (d) sentencing enhancement calculation.
- Yahoo! and Google data were used to link Cameron’s accounts, IPs, and upload events to criminal acts, with NCMEC cyber tip reports forwarding information to law enforcement.
- ICAC and NCMEC obtained searches and warrants leading to Cameron’s home and workplace seizures and forensic examination of multiple devices.
- The court ultimately held that some Confrontation Clause violations occurred due to testimonial Yahoo! CP Reports and CyberTipline Reports, reversing on six counts and remanding for re-sentencing or new trial; other challenged aspects were affirmed.
- Cameron’s sentence was vacated or reconsidered on remand because the fixed count reversal affects the number of images attributed for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of indictment | Cameron contends counts lack image-specificity. | Indictment failed to specify images; venue issues. | Indictment sufficient as to all counts. |
| Venue proper for Counts Twelve–Thirteen | Venue improper in Maine since acts occurred in New York. | Interstate nature and movement into Maine authorize venue. | Venue proper in Maine. |
| Suppression of Yahoo! searches | Yahoo! searches were government agents; evidence should be suppressed. | Yahoo! searches were voluntary business actions, not government-led. | Yahoo! searching not government agent; no suppression required. |
| Confrontation Clause implications | Yahoo!, Google, and NCMEC materials are testimonial and require cross-examination. | Some business records are non-testimonial; misclassification of CP Reports. | Yahoo! Account Management/Login data and Google Logs non-testimonial; CP Reports and CyberTipline Reports testimonial; admission violated Confrontation Clause on several counts. |
| Harmless error and sentencing impact | Confrontation error taints all counts equally. | Error may be harmless for some counts; impacts sentencing. | Harmless for several counts; reversible on Counts One, Three, Four, Five, Eleven, Fourteen; remand for re-sentencing or new trial on those counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay rule; confrontation rights)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimonial vs non-testimonial determinations)
- Meléndez-Díaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (testimonial nature of forensically prepared certificates)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (primary purpose and testimonial evidence; business records)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (primary purpose test for testimonial statements)
- United States v. Lang, 672 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2012) (testimonial vs non-testimonial in business-like records)
- Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1943) (regarding business records produced for trial)
- United States v. Silva, 554 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (private party searches and government agent factors (Silva test))
- Naranjo v. United States, 634 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2011) (bank record analogy; distinction when used for trial)