887 F.3d 780
6th Cir.2018Background
- Gardner recruited and controlled his 17-year-old girlfriend, B.H., for commercial sex, posting ads on Backpage and using his phone to arrange dates; he knew her age.
- On Oct. 10, 2016, after a sting where an undercover officer posed as a client, police found a white iPhone in the motel room next to B.H.’s purse; B.H. said it was hers, provided the passcode, and consented to a search.
- Officers separately encountered Gardner in a car; he said he had a different black phone in a cousin’s car. Police searched the white iPhone and recovered evidence used at trial.
- A grand jury indicted Gardner for sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §1591) and producing child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2251); he moved to suppress the phone evidence and to exclude gang photos.
- The district court denied suppression (finding B.H. had actual and apparent authority) and admitted gang photographs as relevant to coercion; a jury convicted Gardner on both counts and the court imposed concurrent 240-month sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of phone evidence — third-party consent | Government: B.H. consented and had authority to permit the search | Gardner: B.H. lacked actual and apparent authority; search violated Fourth Amendment | Court: B.H. had actual authority (Gardner forfeited apparent-authority-only challenge); officers reasonably relied on consent; suppression denied |
| Voluntariness of B.H.’s consent | Government: consent was voluntary despite tension | Gardner: B.H. was frightened/coerced; initial false name and threat of warrant undermined voluntariness | Court: Consent was voluntary; officer conduct not coercive in context |
| Admission of gang photographs (motion in limine) | Government: photos show why B.H. feared serious harm (element of §1591) | Gardner: photos irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Court: Photos relevant to coercion and not unfairly prejudicial when limited to images B.H. saw; admission within discretion |
| Rebuttal witness timing (Orin King) | Government: called in rebuttal to respond to new defenses raised by Gardner | Gardner: Government should have called King in its case-in-chief | Court: Permissible rebuttal; government rebutted new assertions raised by defendant |
| Sufficiency / interstate nexus for child-pornography charge | Government: production need only use materials that traveled in interstate commerce | Gardner: insufficient proof that video crossed state lines | Court: Argument forfeited; stipulation that iPhone manufactured in China satisfied interstate-commerce element |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (U.S. 1996) (appellate courts review judgments, not advisory opinions)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (apparent authority test for third-party consent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party consent exception to warrant requirement; joint access/control standard)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones’ privacy significance but subject to Fourth Amendment doctrines)
- United States v. Wright, 838 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016) (consent to search digital devices where user control shown)
- United States v. Thomas, 818 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2016) (similar principles for electronic device searches)
- United States v. Salvo, 133 F.3d 943 (6th Cir. 1998) (voluntariness of consent standards)
- United States v. Mandoka, 869 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2017) (Rule 403 prejudice analysis in admitting inflammatory evidence)
- United States v. Caraway, 411 F.3d 679 (6th Cir. 2005) (permissible scope of rebuttal evidence)
- United States v. Penney, 576 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural forfeiture and timing for renewed motions for acquittal)