United States v. Karen Anderson-Bagshaw
509 F. App'x 396
6th Cir.2012Background
- Bagshaw, a USPS worker, received workers’ compensation starting 1998 for thoracic degenerative disc disorder and failed back syndrome.
- In 2002 she stopped working after a new early-morning offer, claiming disability; the OWC began total disability payments in June 2002.
- CA-1032 forms required disclosure of self-employment and business involvement; Bagshaw underreported alpaca investments and did not report volunteer work.
- An OIG investigation uncovered alpaca farm involvement; undercover and QAR interviews were conducted, with Bagshaw denying farm activity.
- To obtain evidence, investigators installed a pole-mounted video camera overlooking Bagshaw’s backyard, operating covertly for 24 days and capturing about 500 hours of footage.
- At trial Bagshaw was convicted on counts 1-14 and acquitted on 15-21; suppression of the pole-camera footage and other pretrial motions were decided against her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pole-camera surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment | Bagshaw argues backyard curtilage and long-term surveillance were unconstitutional | Government contends open fields rule and public visibility negate expectation of privacy | Pole-camera surveillance deemed a Fourth Amendment intrusion (harmless error) (majority) |
| Whether denial of a continuance violated rights to counsel | Insufficient time to review discovery and prepare defense | Discovery provided in time; no prejudice shown | District court did not abuse discretion in denying continuance |
| Exclusion of Dr. McPherson’s expert testimony | Dr. McPherson would offer mental-health testimony to negate intent | Summary under Rule 16 was inadequate and testimony inadmissible under Rule 704(b) | Exclusion affirmed under Rule 16; other grounds not reached |
| Multiplicity of false-statements counts | Counts arose from related questions about same subject matter | Counts involve different factual predicates; not multiplicious | Counts 4 and 7–14 not multiplicious; de novo review applied |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for each count | Evidence suffices to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt | Some counts weakly supported by evidence | Evidence sufficient; affirming denial of acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (open-air observation from public vantage allowed; curtilage not always protected)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (reasonable expectation of privacy requires both subjective and objective certainty)
- Dunn (United States v. Dunn), 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage factors for Fourth Amendment protection)
- Jones (United States v. Jones), 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (long-term GPS surveillance raises Fourth Amendment concerns)
- Gaudin (United States v. Gaudin), 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (materiality resides in jury's determination of facts necessary for conviction)
- Warshak (United States v. Warshak), 631 F.3d 266 (2010) (privacy and technological progress; affiliate concerns with digital surveillance)