United States v. Guy Wheelock
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21886
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Minneapolis police identified an IP address sharing child pornography via peer-to-peer software and sought subscriber identity from Comcast.
- Officer Hanson obtained a Minnesota administrative subpoena (Minn. Stat. § 388.23) signed by the Hennepin County Attorney; Comcast produced Wheelock’s name, address, and subscriber details.
- Police checked the sex-offender registry, obtained a search warrant for Wheelock’s home, and found multiple media and a computer downloading child pornography via Shareaza.
- Wheelock was charged federally and moved to suppress evidence obtained after the administrative subpoena, arguing Fourth Amendment and statutory violations; the district court denied suppression.
- Wheelock pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, reserving the suppression issue, and later challenged the constitutionality of the 15‑year mandatory minimum for repeat offenders under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1).
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: (1) no reasonable Fourth Amendment privacy expectation in ISP subscriber records disclosed to the provider, and (2) the higher mandatory minimum for receipt versus possession survives rational‑basis review.
Issues
| Issue | Wheelock's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of administrative subpoena / Fourth Amendment | Subpoena (vs. warrant) violated Fourth Amendment and state/federal subpoena statutes; he had a privacy interest in subscriber info | Subscriber records disclosed to ISP lack a Fourth Amendment privacy expectation; state subpoena procedures were satisfied and any state-law violation doesn't require suppression | Denied: Third-party disclosure doctrine controls; no reasonable expectation of privacy in ISP subscriber data; subpoena statutes do not mandate suppression |
| Legality of 15-year mandatory minimum for repeat offenders (§ 2252(b)(1)) | Fifteen-year minimum for receipt is arbitrary compared to 10-year minimum for possession; distinction irrational given technological overlap | Congress rationally distinguished receipt (which furthers market/distribution) from possession; mens rea differences and market harms justify harsher penalty | Denied: Distinction is rational under Due Process; sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Suing, 712 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 2013) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in ISP subscriber information)
- United States v. James, 534 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008) (test for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. McIntyre, 646 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2011) (third‑party disclosure doctrine excludes expectation of privacy in information revealed to third parties)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (information voluntarily disclosed to third parties is not protected by the Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (GPS tracking case; concurrences signaled possible future reexamination of third‑party doctrine)
- United States v. Sturm, 673 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2012) (receipt more closely linked to market harms than mere possession)
- United States v. Watzman, 486 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2007) (receipt furthers market for child pornography)
- United States v. Meirick, 674 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2012) (rational‑basis review for legislative sentencing distinctions)