652 F.Supp.3d 38
D.D.C.2023Background
- Defendant David C. Rhine (resident of Washington State) charged by information with four misdemeanors arising from alleged entry and conduct inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 (counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)–(2) and 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D),(G)).
- Government alleges Rhine entered the Capitol ~2:42–3:04 p.m., was briefly detained with flex cuffs after officers found knives and pepper spray, cuffs were cut, and he left; surveillance, tips, CSLI and Google Location History (LH) from a geofence warrant factored into investigation.
- Rhine moved to transfer venue and for expanded voir dire, to dismiss all counts (statutory vagueness, overbreadth, non‑delegation, content‑based speech), and to suppress evidence obtained via a Google “geofence” warrant.
- Court analyzed transfer under Skilling factors (community size/character, publicity, time elapsed) and denied change of venue but granted individual voir dire (denied juror questionnaire).
- Court rejected Rhine’s statutory challenges to § 1752 and § 5104 (including vagueness, overbreadth, non‑delegation, and content‑based speech claims) and denied dismissal of Counts 1–4.
- Court considered geofence‑warrant precedent and practices (multi‑step anonymized lists, control lists, court‑supervised deanonymization), found the warrant here sufficiently tailored and particularized (and, in any event, subject to good faith), and denied suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Rhine) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of venue for presumed local prejudice | D.C. can seat impartial jury after thorough voir dire; Skilling factors favor denial | D.C. population and publicity make fair trial impossible; poll shows bias | Denied; Skilling factors do not show extraordinary local prejudice; individual voir dire granted, juror questionnaire denied |
| Validity / scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 (Counts 1–2): failure to state offense, non‑delegation, vagueness, content‑based restriction | Statute applies to entering/restricting areas as defined and is textually clear and limited; satisfies intelligible‑principle test | Section invalid because only Secret Service may restrict areas; Vice President not a “temporary visitor”; statute vague/overbroad and content‑based | Denied dismissal; courts in D.C. uniformly interpret §1752 to cover posted/cordoned/otherwise restricted areas regardless of which agency restricted them; statute not unconstitutionally vague/overbroad or content‑based |
| Validity of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D),(G) (Counts 3–4): vagueness, overbreadth, content | Government: statutes target conduct, are limited by scienter, place, and result elements; forum analysis supports regulation | Rhine: terms like “disorderly,” “demonstrate” and prohibitions reach protected speech and are vague/overbroad; exemptions make them content‑based | Denied dismissal; court finds terms sufficiently definite, statutes are content‑neutral, apply as reasonable time/place/manner (or in nonpublic forum) restrictions and are not facially overbroad |
| Suppression of Google Location History (geofence) data: probable cause, particularity, overbreadth, standing | Govt: geofence narrowly tailored to Capitol contours/timeframe; multi‑step anonymization and court review before deanonymization; magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; good‑faith applies if any defect | Rhine: warrant amounted to mass querying of Google Sensorvault, overbroad, insufficiently particular, vested too much discretion in government, error radii risk false positives | Denied suppression; court finds warrant sufficiently particular and not overbroad on these facts (unique January 6 context, narrowing via control lists and deanonymization order); even if flawed, good‑faith exception would apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (Supreme Court) (presumption of prejudice for venue change attends only extreme cases; three guiding factors)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Supreme Court) (modern location data can implicate reasonable expectation of privacy; retrospective location surveillance is sensitive)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Supreme Court) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)
- Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (Supreme Court) (voir dire adequacy and petition for juror bias)
- City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advertising of Austin, 142 S. Ct. 1464 (Supreme Court) (content‑based speech regulation definition; agnostic rules are not content‑based)
- Bronstein v. United States, 849 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (statutory vagueness analysis; interpret words in context)
- Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (Supreme Court) (intelligible principle test for delegation)
- Gundy v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2116 (Supreme Court) (delegation doctrine discussion and precedent upholding broad delegations)
- Haldeman v. Sirica, 599 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir.) (preference for voir dire over private polling to test juror impartiality)