United States v. Edward Sullivan
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13702
9th Cir.2015Background
- Sullivan, a convicted sex offender on parole with search-consent and no-contact conditions, took 14-year-old Erika from Berkeley (Northern District) and kept her for ~2 weeks, during which he photographed/filmed sexual acts and uploaded images to an adult site.
- Police/parole agents seized Sullivan’s laptop and camera during a parole arrest; police obtained consent to search the laptop 17 days later and a warrant 21 days after seizure; forensic review located the contested video showing Erika performing oral sex on Sullivan.
- Sullivan was indicted in the Northern District of California on (1) production of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and (2) possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B); he waived a jury trial and was convicted after a 13-day bench trial.
- District court found Sullivan not credible and concluded he knew Erika’s age, denied suppression of laptop evidence, rejected venue and jurisdictional challenges, and applied mandatory minimum sentencing enhancements based on prior California convictions; but the court declined a two-level obstruction enhancement despite finding testimony false.
- District court sentenced Sullivan to concurrent mandatory minimums (25 years under §2251 and 10 years under §2252), and Sullivan appealed several rulings; the government cross-appealed the district court’s refusal to apply the obstruction enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sullivan) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue for §2251(a) production count | Filming occurred in Eastern District (Vacaville); Northern District lacks venue | Offense was continuing: coercion/enticement began in Northern District and led to filming | Venue proper in Northern District under 18 U.S.C. §3237(a) |
| Commerce/jurisdictional element for §2251 / §2252 | Congress lacks Commerce Clause power to reach purely intrastate single-video production/possession post-NFIB | Precedent supports rational basis that child pornography affects interstate commerce (aggregate effect) | Statutes constitutional as applied; NFIB not controlling here |
| Suppression: 21-day delay before warrant for laptop | Unexplained 21-day delay between seizure and warrant was unreasonable (Dass/Mitchell analogies) | Parolee’s diminished privacy, consent obtained, custody, interagency transfer justified delay | No Fourth Amendment violation; seizure/search reasonable under totality of circumstances |
| Applicability of mandatory-minimum enhancements (§2251(e), §2252(b)(2)) based on prior CA convictions | CA §§261.5(d) & 288a(b)(2) are not categorical matches to federal "sexual abuse" definitions (lack mens rea/abuse element) | "Relating to" language is broad; CA offenses involving sex with minors under 16 by defendants ≥21 relate to sexual abuse | Prior CA convictions categorically "relating to" sexual abuse; mandatory minimum enhancements proper |
| Sentencing Guidelines: obstruction enhancement (§3C1.1) | District court excluded enhancement despite finding false testimony (concern about punishing testimony/right to testify) | Government: materially false trial testimony warrants the two-level enhancement | District court erred legally by excluding the enhancement; remand for resentencing to apply correct Guidelines calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (defining categorical approach for prior-conviction analyses)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (construing scope of statutory phrase "relating to" and applying categorical analysis in immigration context)
- Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (reasonableness inquiry for delay in seizure/search)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolee’s diminished privacy interests)
- United States v. Dass, 849 F.2d 414 (9th Cir.) (holding lengthy retention of mailed packages before warrant unreasonable)
- United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.) (21-day retention of hard drive held unreasonable under facts)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (limiting modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (venue for crimes begun in one district and completed in another)