United States v. Charles Stokes
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16042
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Charles Todd Stokes, a former Miami teacher convicted in Florida (misdemeanor battery for indecent touching of two boys), moved to Thailand in 2000 with permission to complete probation; in Thailand he solicited and sexually abused numerous boys and photographed the abuse.
- In 2003 ICE (U.S.) agents, working jointly with Royal Thai Police, executed a Thai search warrant at Stokes’s Pattaya home and seized a camera, computer, and CDs containing thousands of images of sexual activity with many underage boys.
- Stokes was not arrested until 2006; Thailand extradited him to the U.S. in 2007 pursuant to an extradition grant tied to 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c), but prosecutors ultimately charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
- Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal waiver consenting to prosecution under § 2423(b), invoking the extradition treaty’s specialty-waiver provision.
- Stokes moved to suppress the photographic evidence, arguing the extraterritorial search violated the Fourth Amendment (warrant requirement and reasonableness); the district court denied suppression and the jury convicted; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Stokes’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule of Specialty (extradition limits) | Prosecution barred because extradition was for § 2423(c), not § 2423(b) | Thailand waived the specialty rule; waiver is conclusive and bars defense | Waiver by Thailand authorized prosecution under § 2423(b); conviction allowed |
| Extraterritorial application of Warrant Clause | Warrant Clause and Fourth Amendment warrant requirement apply to U.S. agents abroad; Thai warrant was deficient | Warrant Clause/warrant requirement do not apply extraterritorially; only Fourth Amendment reasonableness applies | Warrant Clause/warrant requirement have no extraterritorial application; only reasonableness governs searches abroad by U.S. agents |
| Reasonableness of the joint U.S.-Thai search | Search exceeded scope and lacked particularity; evidence should be suppressed | Joint operation; probable cause supported search; execution minimized intrusion | Search was reasonable under totality of circumstances; suppression denied |
| Various statutory and evidentiary challenges (Commerce Clause, vagueness, prior-bad-acts, sufficiency, sentencing) | § 2423(b) exceeds Commerce Clause, is vague, evidence admission improper, insufficiency, sentencing errors | § 2423(b) within channels power; statute not vague; prior acts admissible under Rules 404(b)/413/414; evidence sufficient; sentence lawful | Court rejected all these challenges and affirmed conviction and 15-year sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 157 (2d Cir.) (warrant requirement does not apply extraterritorially; only reasonableness governs)
- United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (Supreme Court) (Rule of Specialty is enforceable and rooted in treaty law)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court) (Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches of foreign nationals’ property abroad; discussion supports non-applicability of U.S. warrants overseas)
- United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400 (7th Cir.) (discussion of extradition treaties governing relations between nations and personal rights)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court) (probable cause evaluated by totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (Supreme Court) (limits of Commerce Clause; channels power described)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court) (Commerce Clause limits)
- United States v. McGuire, 627 F.3d 622 (7th Cir.) (admission of prior child-molestation evidence under Rules 404(b), 413, 414)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (Supreme Court) (ex post facto considerations for sentencing guideline changes)