United States v. Charles Marvin Watkins
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14261
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Somer Thompson, a 7-year-old, was murdered; investigators interviewed Charles Watkins, who admitted prior downloading/viewing of child pornography and said children used his home computers.
- Detective Sharman obtained Watkins’s oral and then written consent at the sheriff’s office after assuring him officers sought only information relevant to the murder (not his files); Watkins’s consent was limited by those assurances.
- Officers later went to the Watkins home; Detective Eckert obtained Mrs. Watkins’s verbal and written consent to a full search of the three home computers while Mr. Watkins was present and did not object.
- Forensic imaging of Mr. Watkins’s computer revealed deleted child pornography; the government later charged Watkins under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 for receipt of child pornography.
- The magistrate and district courts found Mr. Watkins’s consent had been limited by Sharman’s assurances but concluded Mrs. Watkins validly consented to an unrestricted search; the district court rejected Watkins’s Randolph-based objection.
- Watkins’s motion to reconsider/reopen the suppression hearing was denied; he was convicted at a bench trial on stipulated facts and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Watkins) | Defendant's Argument (Govt.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search exceeded Mr. Watkins’s valid consent | Watkins contends his consent was limited to items relevant to the murder because of detective’s assurances | Govt. agrees Watkins’s consent was limited but relies on Mrs. Watkins’s independent full-consent to validate the search | Court accepted limited consent for Watkins but held Mrs. Watkins’s independent written consent authorized a full search |
| Whether Mrs. Watkins’s consent was negated by Watkins’s presence/objection under Georgia v. Randolph | Watkins argues Randolph prevents a co-tenant’s consent from overcoming his objection/limited consent | Govt argues Randolph requires a contemporaneous, express objection while present; Watkins made no such contemporaneous objection | Court held Randolph inapplicable because Watkins did not contemporaneously and expressly object while Mrs. Watkins signed and did not satisfy Randolph’s presence-and-objection requirement |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying reconsideration/reopening of the suppression hearing | Watkins sought reopening so the district court could make its own credibility findings about Mrs. Watkins’s scope of consent | Govt relied on magistrate judge’s credibility findings and district court’s de novo review adopting them | Court held district court did not abuse its discretion; it properly reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge’s credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (a physically present co-tenant’s contemporaneous refusal to permit a search defeats another occupant’s consent)
- Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014) (Randolph’s protection requires present, contemporaneous objection; a prior objection does not suffice)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (consent by one with common authority is valid against an absent, nonconsenting co-occupant)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness of what typical person would understand)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (valid consent exception to the warrant requirement and voluntariness standards)