United States v. Flyer
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2362
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- FBI undercover used LimeWire to target files labeled with child pornography, identifying Flyer's Tucson residence address.
- Search warrant executed April 13, 2004; GateWay computer, CDs, and laptops seized, with Flyer admitting use of LimeWire and possession of some child pornography.
- Forensic evidence showed LimeWire on an Apple laptop and unallocated space on the Gateway hard drive containing child-pornography images.
- Indictment charged four counts: two for attempted transportation/shipping across state lines, one for possession on Gateway, one for possession on CDs.
- Jury convicted on all counts; district court sentenced Flyer to concurrent 60-month terms, later challenged on appeal.
- Key factual dispute centered on whether evidence supported interstate movement (Counts 1–2) and whether possession in unallocated space (Count 3) was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process from mishandling evidence | Flyer asserts bad faith; suppression warranted | No bad faith; negligent handling, not intended destruction | No due process violation; suppression denied |
| Franks hearing and warrant suppression | False statements/omissions justified Franks hearing | No substantial showing; statements not material to probable cause | Franks hearing denied; warrant valid; suppression denied |
| Sufficiency of jurisdiction for Counts 1–2 | Evidence shows interstate transfer via LimeWire | Mere intra-state downloads can satisfy jurisdiction | Counts 1–2 reversed; Wright controls; no interstate crossing shown |
| Possession in unallocated space (Count 3) | Deletion and unallocated space indicate possession | No dominion/control; no knowledge of files in unallocated space | Count 3 reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583 (9th Cir. 2010) (interstate movement required for §2252A(a)(1) jurisdiction)
- United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) (possession requires dominion over images; cache considerations discussed)
- United States v. Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006) (cache-files possession requires knowledge/ access)
- United States v. Navrestad, 66 M.J. 262 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (café/internet access case; possession not shown by mere viewing)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for excluding statements from warrants; substantial preliminary showing)
- Loud Hawk, 628 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1979) (balancing prejudice and government conduct in suppression of evidence)
- United States v. Cooper, 983 F.2d 928 (9th Cir. 1993) (due process standard for preservation of exculpatory evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (two-step standard for sufficiency of evidence)