United States v. Ramos
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13506
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Ramos, a prior sex offender, was released on New York parole in May 2003 with conditions including no access to porn.
- In March 2008, parole added polygraph testing and GPS monitoring; Ramos agreed to participate after initial reservations.
- On April 4, 2008, Ramos signed forms consenting to the polygraph and acknowledging potential parole sanctions for noncooperation.
- During the polygraph interview, Ramos admitted viewing pornography and child pornography online (12–18 occasions); parole prohibited computer use and led to a new constraint.
- ICE agents later interviewed Ramos at his residence, obtained his consent to searches, and seized a desktop computer revealing child-pornography material; a laptop later seized on November 21, 2008 showed morphed images.
- Ramos was indicted in November 2008 and convicted after trial in 2010 on counts alleging receipt and possession of child pornography; he appealed challenging Fifth Amendment coercion and sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fifth Amendment compelled self-incrimination during polygraph | Ramos was compelled by parole conditions and polygraph threat | Compulsion violated Fifth Amendment rights under Murphy framework | Not compelled; no penalty ситуация existed; statements admitted |
| Sufficiency of evidence for knowing receipt/possession (April 4, 2008 computer) | Viewing cache files alone could be insufficient to prove receipt/possession | Viewed files in cache showed control and intent to possess/receive | Sufficient; viewing and control in cache plus explicit searches support knowing receipt/possession |
| Sufficiency of evidence for morphed images nexus to interstate/foreign commerce | Need nexus to interstate/foreign commerce for morphed images | Foreign-made computer and hard drive used to produce morphed images satisfy nexus | Sufficient; foreign-manufactured equipment used to produce images satisfies § 2252A(a)(5)(B) |
| Constitutionality/pattern of searches and Fourth Amendment issues | Parolees’ searches without probable cause violate Fourth Amendment | Searches were permissible under parole conditions and consent | Parole-searches and consent upheld; no Fourth Amendment error |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (parole condition penalties may create penalty situation if invocation of privilege would revoke probation)
- United States v. Jennings, 652 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2011) (Fifth Amendment privilege not self-executing; invocation required)
- Asherman v. Meachum, 957 F.2d 978 (2d Cir. 1992) (en banc; discussion of compelled statements in supervision context)
- Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (classic penalty situation; compelled speech if threat to liberty or revocation)
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (statements compelled by law enforcement under threat of job loss are inadmissible)
- Holston, 343 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2003) (commerce nexus for intrastate production of child pornography sustains federal statute)
- Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) (knowingly accessing cached files can constitute receipt of child pornography)
- Pruitt, 638 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2011) (viewing/receiving child pornography via computer)
- Kain, 589 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2009) (evidence from browsing history supports knowledge of possession)
- Bass, 411 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2005) (attempts to delete files support inference of knowledge)
- Hotaling, 634 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2011) (creation of morphed images not protected by First Amendment)