United States v. Richard Haas
986 F.3d 467
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background
- In 2016 Haas arranged a sexual meeting with "Sarah," who reported him to the FBI after he showed her thousands of images of children in sexualized states and expressed interest in younger girls. Sarah later cooperated with the FBI, recorded calls, and relayed a fabricated story that she could obtain two children (ages 8 and 12) from Baltimore. Recorded calls show Haas urging Sarah to "hook it up" and offering money.
- After learning of an unrelated allegation that Haas had molested an 11-year-old, FBI agents obtained two nearly identical search-warrant affidavits, executed searches of Haas’s home and work truck, and seized three laptops.
- Haas moved for suppression and requested Franks hearings to challenge omissions in the affidavits (chiefly, Sarah’s criminal history and recent false-identification incident). The district court denied suppression and denied Franks hearings; it admitted the seized evidence under Leon’s good-faith exception.
- A jury convicted Haas of attempted sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §1591/1594) and two child-pornography offenses (receipt and possession). At sentencing the district court applied two enhancements: a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. §2G2.1(b)(1)(A) for involvement of a minor under 12, and a five-level §4B1.5(b) repeat-and-dangerous-sex-offender enhancement, producing a life sentence.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded because the §2G2.1 enhancement (grounded on a fictitious 8-year-old) was applied in error; it affirmed denial of Franks hearings and the §4B1.5 enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Haas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haas made the necessary preliminary showing to obtain a Franks hearing challenging omitted information about Sarah | Affidavits were valid; omissions were not intentional/reckless and did not require a Franks hearing | Agent omitted Sarah’s criminal history (probation, false-ID arrest, prostitution history) and unreliability; those omissions were intentional/reckless and material | Denied — Haas failed to show intentional/reckless omission or that inclusion would defeat probable cause; no Franks hearing required |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted sex trafficking (motion for acquittal) | Evidence (recorded calls, texts, $100 payment) shows Haas took a substantial step and had culpable intent | Haas’s communications were mere preparation/words, not a substantial step toward trafficking | Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to government, substantial evidence supported attempt conviction; words plus payment and repeated solicitation sufficed |
| Whether §2G2.1(b)(1)(A) (4-level) enhancement applies when the solicited minor was fictitious and the intermediary was a private informant | Enhancement applies (either fictitious-minor rule or treating Sarah as de facto law enforcement) | Enhancement applies only to real minors or to law enforcement representations; private citizen pretending to procure a fictitious child cannot trigger the enhancement | Vacated — Guideline application note limits fictitious-minor coverage to representations by law enforcement; private citizen informant like Sarah does not qualify, so §2G2.1 enhancement was improperly applied |
| Whether §4B1.5(b) repeat-and-dangerous-sex-offender enhancement applies when one of multiple convictions is a "covered sex crime" and others are not | Enhancement applies if any count in the "instant offense of conviction" is a covered sex crime; term can encompass multiple convictions | Ambiguity exists about which offense is "instant" and whether non-covered counts negate enhancement; rule of lenity should apply | Affirmed — "instant offense of conviction" may include multiple counts; because one count (§1591) is a covered sex crime, §4B1.5(b) applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standards for requiring a Franks hearing when affidavits contain false statements or misleading omissions)
- United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109 (4th Cir. 2016) (omitted informant misconduct can satisfy Franks intentionality when officer knew omission would affect reliability)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (Franks protects against omissions designed to mislead or made in reckless disregard)
- United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2008) (Franks-hearing preliminary-showing standard; heavy burden for omissions)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule where warrant was not issued based on deliberate or reckless falsehood)
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (words and communications can constitute a "substantial step" for attempt convictions under §1591)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; substantial evidence test)