United States v. Fifer
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12748
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police conducted two controlled heroin buys from Marcus Fifer’s apartment using a confidential informant; a state search warrant was obtained based on an affidavit recounting those buys.
- During the state-authorized search officers found a half‑naked 16‑year‑old girl (C.T.) hiding under a bed; she initially lied about her identity and age.
- An on‑site review of seized phones/tablet revealed sexually explicit images of C.T. and Fifer, prompting referral to the sex‑crimes unit and a federal warrant to search the electronic devices based on C.T.’s statements.
- Federal search of the devices produced videos and images used to charge Fifer with multiple counts of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- District court denied Fifer’s motion to suppress, excluded evidence of his knowledge of C.T.’s age and his “loving relationship” evidence as irrelevant, admitted his prior sex‑offense conviction after he testified about intent, and gave a pattern jury instruction referring to government experts by title.
- Fifer was convicted on 18 counts and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment and lifetime supervised release with mandatory sex‑offender treatment, including physiological testing.
Issues
| Issue | Fifer's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for state search warrant | Warrant lacked probable cause from controlled buys | Affidavit describing two controlled buys provided sufficient probable cause | Probable cause existed; defer to issuing judge |
| Good‑faith reliance / Franks hearing | Affiant made false/misleading statements; good‑faith presumption rebutted | No substantial showing of deliberate or reckless falsehoods; officers relied on warrant | Good‑faith exception applies; no Franks hearing required |
| On‑site search of electronic devices | Warrant authorized seizure but not on‑site search of devices; search illegal | Warrant implicitly authorizes searching seized devices; exigent circumstances applied; independent federal warrant/inevitable discovery | On‑site search permissible (implicit authority and exigency) and evidence also admissible via independent source/inevitable discovery |
| Exclusion of evidence about victim’s age | Evidence of belief about C.T.’s age was relevant to culpability | Knowledge of age is not an element of §2251(a); evidence irrelevant | Exclusion proper; mistake‑of‑age not a defense per Fletcher |
| Exclusion of “loving relationship” witnesses/exhibits | Relationship evidence shows lack of intent to produce pornography | Production for the purpose of creating depictions is the relevant intent; other motives don’t negate that intent | Exclusion proper as irrelevant to statutory intent requirement |
| Admission of prior sex‑offense conviction (Rule 414) | Admission was unfairly prejudicial | Conviction probative of sexual interest/motive after defendant put intent at issue | Admission proper after defendant testified about motive; Rule 414/403 balance upheld |
| Jury instruction referencing witness titles and subject matter | Instruction unduly bolstered government experts and prejudiced defense | Titles and brief subject descriptions were accurate and record‑supported | Instruction accurate; not improper bolstering |
| Lifetime supervised release and physiological testing | Length and testing conditions were excessive; Fifth Amendment/self‑incrimination concerns | Conditions reasonably related to goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection; district court discretion | Terms upheld as reasonably tailored; testing challenges unripe or baseless |
Key Cases Cited
- McPhaul v. United States, 835 F.3d 687 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression denial)
- Sidwell v. Park, 440 F.3d 865 (7th Cir.) (probable cause from controlled buys)
- Aljabari v. United States, 626 F.3d 940 (7th Cir.) (totality‑of‑circumstances/probable cause deference)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct.) (probable cause requires practical common‑sense probability)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Sup. Ct.) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (Sup. Ct.) (limits warrantless cellphone searches; distinguished here)
- Vang v. United States, 128 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir.) (intent under related statutes: multiple purposes permitted)
- Fletcher v. United States, 634 F.3d 395 (7th Cir.) (knowledge of victim’s age not element of §2251)
- Williams v. United States, 718 F.3d 644 (7th Cir.) (technical contradictions do not defeat good faith)
- Hawpetoss v. United States, 478 F.3d 820 (7th Cir.) (deferential review of Rule 414 evidence admission)