United States v. Darr
661 F.3d 375
8th Cir.2011Background
- Darr, Sr. was investigated for child molestation; the victim H.H. described incidents at Darr, Sr.’s home in 2007.
- Police learned of two additional victims, S.O. and J.O., with incidents described as involving a bathroom brush and related items.
- In Feb. 2010, Wellman applied for a warrant to search the residence for listed items (Vick's Vapor Rub, two bathroom brushes) and occupancy documents.
- A Linn County judge issued a warrant to search the home for those items; officers seized containers, underwear, printouts, and photographs during the initial search.
- A second warrant permitted seizure of specific digital media; officers later located memory cards and videotapes; a third warrant targeted videotapes and memory card.
- Darr was arrested, Mirandized, and gave a written statement; FBI later obtained a warrant to search the memory card and tapes, revealing child pornography.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for first warrant | Darr argues stale information negates probable cause. | Darr contends the warrant relies on outdated facts. | Probable cause not so stale as to invalidate the warrant. |
| Scope of the first warrant and plain view | Search of bedroom and VHS holder exceeded scope. | Search within scope; plain view supports seizure. | Search within scope; plain-view seizures proper. |
| Second warrant scope | Second warrant limited to three items from first search. | Second warrant not a general search; overbroad search of cooler/tin. | Second warrant unnecessary to decide; cooler/tin admissible under first warrant; plain-view seizure proper. |
| Probable cause for third warrant | Affidavit failed to show probable cause for memory card/tapes. | Affidavit described prior seizures and known use of memory cards for child porn; sufficient. | Probable cause established for searching memory card and videotapes. |
| Fruits of unlawful searches and statements | Statements were fruits of unlawful searches. | Statements tainted by unlawful searches. | No suppression; statements not fruit of unlawful searches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause requires a fair probability of evidence in a place)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to suppressions when reliance on a warrant is reasonable)
- United States v. Romo-Corrales, 592 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2010) (scope and plain-view exception include areas where items may be found)
- United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1991) (scope of search includes areas where listed items might be found)
- United States v. Horn, 187 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 1999) (case-specific staleness and probable cause analysis)
- United States v. Hatten, 68 F.3d 257 (8th Cir. 1995) (immediately apparent incriminating nature required for plain view)
- United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2006) (need not consider memory-card evidence raised for first time on appeal)
- United States v. Koelling, 992 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1993) (staleness not purely days-based; case-specific inquiry)