694 F. App'x 422
7th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Richard Geasland told neighbor Susan Leppert about prior sexual offenses and viewing child pornography; Leppert wrote and signed a detailed three‑page voluntary statement and reported to police two days later.
- Cuba City Police Chief Terry Terpstra prepared an affidavit attaching Leppert’s statement and a brief residence description; a state judge issued a search warrant the same day and police seized a hard drive containing thousands of child‑pornography images.
- Geasland was federally charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B); he moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause because Leppert’s tip was uncorroborated.
- Magistrate judge and district court found the warrant lacked probable cause but denied suppression under the good‑faith exception from United States v. Leon because officers reasonably relied on the warrant; Geasland pleaded guilty reserving the suppression appeal right.
- At sentencing the district court imposed a 120‑month mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), finding Geasland’s 1984 Wisconsin conviction for first‑degree sexual assault of a minor related to federal abusive‑sexual‑contact offenses.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed: (1) evidence admissible under Leon’s good‑faith exception; (2) the prior Wisconsin conviction could reasonably be treated as relating to abusive sexual contact such that the 10‑year minimum applied (no plain error shown).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Geasland) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression required because warrant lacked probable cause | Warrant was facially deficient: Leppert’s tip was uncorroborated and not presented to issuing judge, so officers could not reasonably rely on it | Leppert was a named citizen eyewitness who gave a detailed, signed statement; officers reasonably relied on the warrant | Denied suppression: warrant lacked probable cause but Leon good‑faith exception applies; evidence admissible |
| Whether Leppert’s tip alone supplied probable cause | Citizen tip without corroboration insufficient to search a home | Citizen informant with firsthand knowledge, detailed signed statement, and officer’s in‑person assessment is sufficiently reliable | Court found probable cause lacking but reliance on warrant was objectively reasonable under Leon |
| Whether Geasland’s Wisconsin conviction qualifies under §2252(b)(2) as a prior offense “relating to” abusive sexual contact of a minor | State statute broader (victims ≤12) than federal §2244(a)(5) (victims ≤11); mismatch defeats categorical equivalence and enhancement | “Relating to” language is broad; state offense is similar in nature and can be seen as relating to the federal offense (or to a generic abusive‑contact offense) | Affirmed enhancement: age mismatch is apparent but not plain error given the breadth of “relating to” and alternative rationales (no plain error) |
| Whether error in applying enhancement was plain (forfeiture/plain‑error review) | Failure to raise age‑mismatch below requires plain‑error showing; mismatch is obvious and prejudicial | Even under plain‑error standard the state offense reasonably relates to federal abusive sexual contact or a reasonable generic definition would encompass it | No plain error: enhancement stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Gramenos v. Jewel Cos., Inc., 797 F.2d 432 (7th Cir. 1986) (eyewitness/citizen reports can supply probable cause)
- United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2002) (uncorroborated informant tips can be insufficient for probable cause)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach to prior‑conviction comparison)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (limits on reading “relating to” overly broadly)