949 F.3d 95
3d Cir.2020Background
- Hendrickson, a pretrial detainee held on territorial charges, was housed at a Virgin Islands BOC facility that also houses federal inmates under a USMS contract.
- During a pat-down, officers found a password‑protected cell phone on Hendrickson; it displayed an AT&T logo, lacked a SIM card, and could only call 911; Hendrickson said he used it as an "MP3 player."
- The Government did not search the phone’s data because it was password‑protected; an electronics technician and an agent confirmed the device was a working phone.
- A jury convicted Hendrickson under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) for possession of contraband in prison (a "prohibited object").
- Hendrickson appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient because (1) the device was not a "phone or other device used by a user of commercial mobile service" (he claimed "used" requires prior commercial use), and (2) he was not an "inmate of a prison" within § 1791 because he was detained on territorial charges in a territorial facility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the device qualifies as a "phone or other device used by a user of commercial mobile service" under § 1791(d)(1)(F) | "Used" requires prior actual use with commercial mobile service; no evidence of prior use here | "Used" is adjectival—statute covers devices that are generally used to access commercial mobile service; device's characteristics (AT&T logo, operational, tech confirmation) establish it is a phone | Court held "used" is adjectival; phone (as found) qualifies as prohibited object and evidence sufficed |
| Whether Hendrickson was an "inmate of a prison" under § 1791(a)(2) / § 1791(d)(4) | § 1791 applies only to federal prisoners or prisoners in federal facilities; Hendrickson was a territorial detainee in a territorial facility | § 1791(d)(4) covers any facility where persons are held pursuant to a contract or agreement with the Attorney General (e.g., USMS contracts); statute intentionally extends beyond federal-only facilities | Court held the definition covers facilities holding federal prisoners under contract; evidence (USMS contract and presence of federal inmates) sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernal v. NRA Grp., LLC, 930 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2019) (explains that past participles can function adjectivally or denote past action; used to construe "used")
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (interpretation of the indefinite article "a" as meaning an unspecified or typical example)
- Mozilla Corp. v. F.C.C., 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (discusses the scope of "commercial mobile service" and interconnected public telephone networks)
- United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010) (addresses Congress' power and rationale for protecting federal prisoners)
- United States v. Vera-Porras, [citation="612 F. App'x 402"] (8th Cir. 2015) (earlier appellate treatment of § 1791 contraband phone issue)
- City of Jefferson City v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 531 F.3d 595 (8th Cir. 2008) (collects definitions of "cell phone" / "telephone" for contextual meaning)