United States v. D'Andrea
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9541
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Tipster reported child abuse by Jordan and D'Andrea; information led DSS to investigate and obtain website access to pornographic images.
- DSS agent accessed a password-protected Sprint PCS online account and printed over 30 images linking to the abuse.
- Warrant to search D'Andrea's Gloucester residence was based on Tipster information and vehicle/license checks; items including the camera phone were seized.
- D'Andrea and Jordan were indicted and pled guilty conditionally to sex exploitation and conspiracy, reserving rights to suppress evidence and challenge the warrant.
- District court denied suppression and Franks motions without an evidentiary hearing; convictions followed by sentencing.
- Court vacates judgments and remands for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the suppression motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression motions required an evidentiary hearing | D'Andrea/Jordan claim disputed facts about privacy and private/government searches. | Government contends no threshold dispute justifies a hearing. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on suppression. |
| Whether a Franks hearing was warranted | D'Andrea asserts misrepresentation by DSS agent in the affidavit. | Franks applies to affiant misrepresentation; private informants not bound; unclear nexus evidence. | Court partially addresses Franks; evidentiary hearing on suppression to proceed; Franks not decisively resolved here. |
| Whether the private search doctrine applies to the Tipster's actions | Tipster’s actions can be treated as private, not state action; thus Fourth Amendment not implicated. | Assumption of risk and scope of private search require further factual development. | Remand to determine whether Tipster’s actions and any government involvement fit Jacobsen framework. |
| Whether the government’s theories (exigent circumstances, inevitable discovery) save the search | Exigent circumstances or inevitable discovery could justify admission of evidence. | Current record insufficient to establish those exceptions; require evidentiary development. | Remand for evidentiary hearing to explore these theories. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying suppression without feedback on taint/fruit analysis | Taint from private search may render subsequent police evidence inadmissible. | Taint analysis requires more development; possible curative steps via hearing. | Remand to allow full factual development applicable to fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (private search doctrine governs government use of private information)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine framework)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree and taint analysis limitations)
- Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765 (1983) (privacy expectations and surveillance gaps context)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (privacy expectations and technological surveillance)