895 F.3d 560
8th Cir.2018Background
- In 2015 police investigated Deuvontay Charles after Facebook messages suggested he recruited minor girls for prostitution and induced them to produce sexually explicit images; warrants for Facebook records corroborated contacts with multiple juveniles.
- Investigators traced references to a Thomas Avenue North Minneapolis address, conducted surveillance, reviewed IP and cell-site data, and obtained a warrant to search that residence.
- Police executed the warrant, arrested Charles, and forensically searched three cell phones; two contained child pornography and images of identified victims.
- A jury convicted Charles of sex trafficking (by force/threat/fraud/coercion), sex trafficking of minors, producing and receiving child pornography, and committing a felony involving a minor while required to register as a sex offender; he was sentenced to 432 months plus 20 years supervised release.
- At sentencing the court ordered restitution: $675 to the victim (K.M.L.) and $29,420 to Anoka County for the victim’s residential treatment; Charles appealed suppression, sufficiency of the §2260A conviction, and restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion to suppress / denial of Franks hearing | Warrant affidavit omitted/materially misled about Charles’s residence; omissions were necessary to probable cause | Affidavit was not deliberately/recklessly misleading; facts supported finding Charles stayed at Thomas Ave and probable cause to search; warrant authorized phone forensics | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion denying Franks hearing; probable cause supported warrant; forensic search of phones authorized |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §2260A (felony involving minor while required to register) | Charles argued government failed to prove he was required to register when 2015 offenses occurred | Government showed Charles was on Minnesota Predatory Offender Registry (MPOR) and testimony equated MPOR with a sex-offender registry; defendant failed to preserve specific §2260A challenge | Court affirmed conviction: sufficient evidence for jury to find registration requirement; any unpreserved legal challenge reviewed for plain error and failed |
| Restitution to victim (K.M.L.) | Charles argued lack of proof that his conduct proximately caused victim’s injuries and treatment costs | Government relied on trial testimony showing victim turned phone over as evidence, was hospitalized and received treatment; forensic pediatrician linked trafficking to need for mental-health care | Court affirmed restitution to K.M.L.: government met preponderance standard for cell phone and transportation amounts |
| Restitution to Anoka County | Charles argued no evidence county actually paid $29,420 for treatment; amount unsupported | Government relied on Statement of Claim and Summons from county suit against victim’s mother (not a receipt) | Court vacated restitution to Anoka County: government did not prove county paid treatment costs by preponderance of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes rule for challenging warrant affidavits for false statements or omissions)
- United States v. Douglas, 744 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for suppression legal conclusions and factual findings)
- United States v. Snyder, 511 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2008) (Franks hearing standards and defendant’s required showing)
- United States v. LaMorie, 100 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 1996) (applying Franks principles)
- United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957 (8th Cir. 1986) (omission-based Franks challenges)
- United States v. Samuels, 874 F.3d 1032 (8th Cir. 2017) (standards for sufficiency review and plain-error framework)
- United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2012) (preservation of specific grounds in Rule 29 motions)
- United States v. Carpenter, 841 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for restitution rulings)
- United States v. Hoskins, 876 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2017) (government bears preponderance burden for restitution amounts)
- United States v. Schmidt, 675 F.3d 1164 (8th Cir. 2012) (permitting restitution to government payors where payment is proven)
- United States v. Searing, 250 F.3d 665 (8th Cir. 2001) (third-party payments and victims’ recoverable losses)