United States v. Genco, 1:21-cr-00085

Background:

Indictment: Genco charged federally with attempted hate crime (18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2)) and unlawful possession of a machinegun (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o), 924(a)(2)).
Relevant conduct: from 2019–Mar 12, 2020 Genco posted on Incel forums, drafted a violent manifesto and planning documents, researched weapons/modifications and potential targets, attended Army basic training, and purchased tactical gear and firearms.
March 12, 2020 incident: Highland County deputies responded to a 911 call by Genco’s mother; officers searched Genco’s car (with consent) and found an AR-15 with a bump stock and armor; with Genco’s consent they searched his bedroom and found a hidden 9mm pistol and two documents (Exhibits 4 and 5).
Fourth Amendment dispute: Detective Engle read Exhibit 4 (a note) during the warrantless bedroom search; the court found that reading Exhibit 4 exceeded the scope of consent but viewing (not reading) Exhibit 5 did not.
Warrant and later proceedings: Detective Engle obtained a warrant incorporating an affidavit that referenced Exhibits 4 and 5; Genco later entered an Alford plea in state court and was sentenced; he moved to suppress and to dismiss in federal court.
Rulings: Court GRANTED IN PART the motion to suppress the warrantless search (excluded Exhibit 4 from the warrant affidavit), DENIED the motion to suppress evidence seized under the search warrant, and DENIED motions to dismiss for improper venue, Commerce Clause, and machinegun charge.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated the Fourth Amendment by reading a note (Exhibit 4) during consent bedroom search	Gov’t: officers had consent to search bedroom for gun; mother had pointed out the note and officers’ observation was incidental	Genco: reading the note exceeded the limited consent to search for a gun; mother lacked authority to consent and private-search doctrine inapplicable	Court: Reading Exhibit 4 exceeded consent; suppression remedy: exclude references to Exhibit 4 from later warrant (grant in part).
Whether the subsequent search warrant (after excising Exhibit 4) lacked probable cause or was tainted fruit	Gov’t: affidavit (sans Exhibit 4) still established nexus/probable cause; alternatively good-faith exception saves fruits	Genco: affidavit relied on unlawfully obtained Exhibit 4; without it no probable cause for terroristic-threat evidence	Court: Probable cause remains after excising Exhibit 4; alternatively Leon good-faith exception applies — motion denied.
Whether venue for attempted hate crime is improper in Southern District of Ohio	Gov’t: multiple substantial-step acts occurred in Southern District (posts, purchases, hiding weapons, internet use, research, physical possession of weapons in district)	Genco: key overt act (surveillance) occurred in Northern District, so venue is improper here	Court: Venue proper — acts in Southern District constitute substantial steps.
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(2) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause power as applied/facially	Gov’t: § 249 contains jurisdictional hooks (channels, instrumentalities, interstate-traveled firearms, internet/cellphone/car), and Genco used those instrumentalities	Genco: attempted conduct is non‑commercial; intent/writings alone cannot supply commerce hook	Court: § 249 is constitutional on its face and as applied here given use of channels/instrumentalities and interstate-traveled firearm — motion denied.
Whether the modified Glock-style pistol qualifies as a “machinegun”	Gov’t: ATF testing showed the pistol fired multiple rounds (two) from a single trigger function, satisfying statutory definition	Genco: firing only two rounds per trigger pull precludes it being an “automatic” machinegun under Staples conceptualization	Court: Statutory text controls — firing more than one shot by a single function of the trigger qualifies as a machinegun; motion denied.

Key Cases Cited

Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (private-search doctrine and limits on Fourth Amendment protection)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent is a warrant exception and is judged under totality of circumstances)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)
United States v. Garcia, 496 F.3d 495 (documents cannot be read under plain-view if incriminating nature not immediately apparent)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (government bears burden to prove third‑party consent/authority)
Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (common authority doctrine for third‑party consent)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause standard: totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (limits on Commerce Clause; categories of regulable activity)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (Commerce Clause analysis framework)
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (discussion of “automatic” weapons—contextual authority)
Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland, 19 F.4th 890 (6th Cir.) (interpretive support for ATF/definition of bump-stock-type devices as machineguns)