United States v. Henry
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11000
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Henry, charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), entered a conditional guilty plea with appeal rights reserved.
- Police obtained Henry’s motel room after observing drug paraphernalia and activity consistent with trafficking related to a missing 15-year-old (M.V.).
- A.H., a 19-year-old with developmental delays, was identified as a trafficking victim and connected to the motel room where officers encountered Henry and the victims.
- During a knock-and-talk, officers observed a bulging pocket with cash and two smartphones; Henry provided phone numbers and passwords.
- Warrants were issued to search the motel room, Henry’s car, and later the iPhone and Nokia; video evidence of sexual activity with M.V. was found on the iPhone.
- Henry moved to suppress the cash, the phones, and sought a Franks hearing to challenge warrants omitting A.H.’s disability; the district court denied these motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2251(a) requires knowledge of the victim’s actual age | Henry contends lack of knowledge about age invalidates the conviction | Henry argues the statute’s effect chills protected speech, requiring an age-knowingly defense | No; statute permits conviction without knowing actual age |
| Whether the jury should receive a mistake-of-age defense under overbreadth | Henry asserts overbreadth to permit defense based on MV’s age claim | State interest in protecting minors supports lack of need for age-knowledge defense | Overbreadth defense rejected; not needed to sustain law’s reach |
| Whether the jacket pocket cash seizure was lawful under Terry and plain feel | Cash could not be seized without immediate probable cause | Plain feel supported seizure based on immediate incriminating nature | Seizure permissible; probable cause supported cash’s incriminating nature |
| Whether the smart phones were lawfully seized and later searched with warrants | Phones improperly seized; warrantless seizure invalid | Plain view and probable cause justified seizure; warrants followed | Seizure lawful; warrants obtained for searches; suppression denied |
| Whether the District Court should have held a Franks hearing concerning A.H.’s disability | Omission of A.H.’s disability could undermine probable cause | Citation omissions not material to probable cause | No clear error; omissions not material to probable cause; Franks hearing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1994) (limits on scienter in child-pornography prosecutions)
- Ferber v. New York, 458 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1982) (government interest in protecting minors from exploitation)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982) (press anonymity and First Amendment considerations)
- United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2009) (scienter and trafficking-related prosecutions)
- United States v. Fletcher, 634 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2011) (rejection of Ninth Circuit’s 2251(a) analysis)
- United States v. Humphrey, 608 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2010) (statutory interpretation of 2251(a) regarding mens rea)
- United States v. Deverso, 518 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2008) (analysis of mens rea in 2251(a))
- United States v. Reiner, 500 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard under Gates and Franks framework)
- United States v. Nascimento, 491 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (incidental searches and limits on scope of searches)