United States v. Jennings
652 F.3d 290
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Jennings pleaded guilty in 2006 to possession of child pornography and received 21 months' imprisonment and 20 years' supervised release with restrictive conditions.
- In 2009, probation modified conditions to include search rights and broad device monitoring; included a prohibition on sexually explicit material.
- Jennings admitted to sexual conduct and viewing child pornography during supervised release, triggering new investigations.
- Warrants were sought and issued to search Jennings's brother's residence, leading to seizure of electronic devices containing child pornography.
- Jennings was indicted in 2009 for possession of child pornography with enhanced penalties due to the 2006 conviction; in 2010 he received two judgments: one for possession (Judgment II) and one revoking supervised release (Judgment I).
- He appeals challenging (i) probations officer authority to initiate criminal proceedings and (ii) suppression of statements and evidence; the district court denied these motions, and Jennings pled guilty in the 2009 case under a conditional plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USPO exceeded authority to initiate criminal proceedings | Jennings argues Pierce acted beyond statutory/constitutional bounds | Jennings asserts probation officer cannot plan or initiate criminal actions | No violation; USPO duties permit information sharing and investigation within supervision authority |
| Whether Fifth Amendment applies to statements and evidence from February 19 interview | Jennings claims Fifth Amendment privilege protects those statements | Murphy controls; statements voluntary if privilege not invoked | Statements not compelled; suppression denied |
| Whether delay in reporting CVSA failure was plain error | Delay breached immediacy requirement of §3603(8)(B) | Delay not plain error and did not affect substantial rights | No plain error; no substantial rights affected |
| Whether Supervised-Release-Violation Judgment is moot if Judgment II stands | Challenge to enhanced penalties due to new conviction | If Judgment II kept, no basis to reduce penalties | Mootness; challenge rejected as Judgment II affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (probationers may be questioned without Fifth Amendment waiver unless compulsion is shown)
- United States v. Bermudez-Plaza, 221 F.3d 231 (1st Cir. 2000) (relevance of USPO sharing information with USAO in revocation context)
- United States v. Mejia-Sanchez, 172 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1999) (probation officers may share information with DOJ in revocation and related proceedings)
- United States v. Davis, 151 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 1998) (USAO discretion to file new charges based on probation violations)
- United States v. Inserra, 34 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1994) (USPO as a judicial branch actor with overlapping duties)