United States v. John Butler
477 F. App'x 217
5th Cir.2012Background
- Defendants charged in Houston with conspiracy and multiple sex-trafficking offenses related to coercing women and minors into prostitution.
- Investigation began in 2005; Houston Vice Division and FBI coordinated in response to complaints of minor prostitution in local brothels.
- In 2006, undercover sting led to arrest of Hornbeak after he transported a 17-year-old for prostitution; his cell phone was seized and its call data searched without a warrant; Hornbeak’s car was searched prior to towing.
- Wiretap authorizations were issued on March 28, 2007 (Hornbeak’s cell phone) and May 14, 2007 (Hornbeak and McDaniels’ phones) for 30 days each.
- Defendants moved to suppress the wiretap evidence; Hornbeak moved to suppress the warrantless cell phone and car searches; the district court granted suppression in March 2011.
- This appeal follows the district court’s March 21, 2011 suppression order; the government seeks reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wiretap evidence was properly admitted under 18 U.S.C. §2518(1)(c). | Government showed necessity; traditional techniques failed to reveal the full scope. | Defendants contend no sufficient necessity shown and that expansion was improper. | Wiretap evidence not suppressed; necessity satisfied; district court erred. |
| Whether the warrantless search of Hornbeak’s cell phone incident to arrest was lawful. | Finley governs: no warrant required for arrestee’s cell phone contents. | Search deemed constitutionally unreasonable by district court. | District court erred; Finley controls; no warrant required. |
| Whether the warrantless search of Hornbeak’s vehicle post-arrest was reasonable under Gant. | Searching for evidence of prostitution in the vehicle was reasonable. | Gant requires evidence of the crime of arrest or probable cause for other crimes. | Search permissible under Gant; remand warranted for proper framing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guerra-Marez, 928 F.2d 665 (5th Cir. 1991) (necessity for wiretaps; expansion allowed when traditional techniques insufficient)
- United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1984) (necessity requirement for wiretaps)
- United States v. Krout, 66 F.3d 1420 (5th Cir. 1995) (test for necessity; expansion feasible with reasonable efforts)
- United States v. Kelley, 140 F.3d 596 (5th Cir. 1998) (expansion of investigation; scope of conspiracy)
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (no warrant needed for search of arrestee’s cell phone)
- United States v. Curtis, 635 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2011) (cell phone searches incident to lawful arrest authority)
- Chavez v. United States, 281 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; de novo on law)
- United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2001) (reviewing district court’s suppression ruling; de novo on ultimate issue)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court 2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest; scope limited to evidence relevant to arresting offense)