United States v. Leland Beasley, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15748

Background

Beasley owned Gamestation Sector 19, a game store where mostly minors paid to play; he hosted overnight lock-ins with minors present.
Police investigated Beasley after an initial allegation of child sexual abuse and conducted a laptop search, which yielded no incriminating evidence.
Beasley was interviewed for over two hours at the police station after waiving Miranda rights; he admitted past arrests and traveling with minors but offered little detail on his ‘problem.’
CDs obtained from Beasley’s ex-wife allegedly contained child pornography linked to Beasley’s Gamestation; the discs were reviewed and confirmed to include images of a minor connected to the case.
Items Beasley asked a friend to collect from Gamestation were seized from Moss’s residence; Beasley later consented to search those items at the police station, yielding extensive child-pornography materials.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moss’s consent to seizure was valid and the seizure lawful	Beasley argues Moss lacked authority to consent and the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.	Beasley contends the seizure was improper and the obtained items should be suppressed.	Seizure was lawful; authority and circumstances supported admissibility.
Whether the plain-view seizure was valid	Beasley claims no lawful basis for the seizure in plain view.	Beasley maintains plain-view seizure was improper.	Plain-view seizure valid; Moss facilitated access and items were in plain sight.
Whether Beasley's January 19, 2009 consent to search was voluntary	Beasley argues coercion due to custody and lack of Miranda warnings.	Beasley asserts lack of voluntariness and coercion invalidates consent.	Consent voluntary; no clear error in finding voluntariness under totality of circumstances.
Whether admission of Beasley’s January 5 statements violated Miranda	Statements were admissible because Miranda warnings were provided before questioning.	Beasley contends earlier interrogation without warnings violated Miranda.	No Miranda violation; warnings were given before custodial questioning.
Whether the indictment and bill of particulars adequately informed Beasley	Broad time frames are appropriate in child-abuse prosecutions and do not prejudice.	Indictments are too broad, risking surprise and potential double jeopardy.	Indictment sufficiently informs defense; no reversible prejudice shown.
Whether the district court erred in admitting lay opinion testimony and jury instruction on reasonable doubt	Testimony helped establish ages and context; model instruction is proper.	Objections to lay opinion and doubt standard were meritless.	Lay opinion properly admitted; instruction on reasonable doubt upheld.

Key Cases Cited

Clutter, 674 F.3d 980 (8th Cir. 2012) (seizure of property with custodial consent; four-factor justification)
James, 353 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2003) (authority to consent to search by third party)
Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (probable cause to seize pending warrant to examine contents)
Muhammad, 604 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-view seizure doctrine requires lawful access and apparent incriminating nature)
Nguyen, 608 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 2010) (Miranda warnings trigger requirement for custodial interrogation)
Hayes, 574 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2009) (indictment sufficiency and bill of particulars standards)
Sewell, 513 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2008) (indictment sufficiency; bill of particulars review standard)
Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2002) (bill of particulars and notice in child abuse cases)
Rosso, 179 F.3d 1102 (8th Cir. 1999) (reasonable doubt instruction validity)
Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing under Gall framework)
Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (physical fruits of voluntary statements admissible despite Miranda omission)