United States v. Robert Franz
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21030
3rd Cir.2014Background
- BLM investigated Robert Franz for allegedly smuggling a mammoth tusk to his home; agents obtained the Nardinger warrant (July 30, 2009) authorizing seizure of fossils, records, photos, and electronic storage; the warrant and supporting papers were sealed.
- At execution (Aug. 3, 2009), Agent Nardinger gave Franz the warrant face sheet but did not provide Attachment B listing specific items to be seized; Nardinger believed sealing forbade showing attachments.
- During the search agents observed and seized pamphlets containing images of nude minors and seized Franz’s computer and external drive; the FBI later obtained a sealed warrant (Herrick warrant) to search the digital devices.
- Two images from Franz’s external hard drive (202.jpg and 196.jpg) became the basis for federal child-pornography charges (receipt and possession); Franz was indicted in Jan. 2012.
- District Court found the Nardinger warrant was facially invalid as executed (Attachment B not shown) but denied suppression after applying the exclusionary-rule deterrence balancing (good-faith mistake by an inexperienced agent); Herrick-warrant Rule 41/due-process challenge was raised late and deemed waived.
- At trial pamphlets were initially admitted, projected to the jury, later struck for lack of proof of interstate/foreign commerce; jury convicted Franz of receipt (based on 202.jpg) and acquitted him of possession (the pamphlet-based theory).
Issues
| Issue | Franz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence obtained under the Nardinger warrant must be suppressed because agents did not give Attachment B when executing a facially deficient warrant | The warrant was facially invalid as executed, so exclusionary rule applies categorically; no need for good-faith inquiry | Officer’s failure was an isolated, reasonable mistake; Leon/Sheppard permit a case-specific good-faith/deterrence analysis | Court affirmed denial of suppression: conduct was objectively reasonable (isolated mistake, reliance on sealing order/prosecutor) so exclusion not warranted |
| Whether failure to provide Franz a copy of the Herrick warrant and inventory for 31 months violated Rule 41 or due process (and whether that was preserved) | Service delay violated Rule 41(f) and due process; evidence should be suppressed | Argument was not timely raised below and thus waived; even considered, no clear abuse of discretion | Held waived for appeal (raised first on reconsideration); District Court did not abuse discretion in denying reconsideration |
| Whether admission (then striking) and display of graphic pamphlet images prejudiced the trial and required mistrial or new trial | Showing highly inflammatory images prejudiced jury despite curative instructions; mistrial or reversal required | Court gave clear, repeated curative instructions; jury split verdict suggests jury followed them; any error harmless | Court upheld rulings: admission then striking was not reversible error; curative instructions and split verdict make prejudice highly improbable |
| Sufficiency of evidence as to receipt conviction: interstate nexus, knowing receipt, and "sexually explicit" nature of 202.jpg | Insufficient proof that image travelled interstate; receipt wasn’t knowing; image not lascivious child pornography | Forensic evidence (browser history, Downloads folder, external drive folder named "Internet Downloads"), single-user profile, and image content (nude minor with legs spread on bed) support elements | Evidence sufficient: jurors could infer internet download/interstate nexus, knowing receipt, and lascivious exhibition under Dost factors; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (warrant-execution exclusionary-rule framework; facially deficient warrants may be excepted but require case-specific analysis)
- Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (officer reliance on prosecutor/judge can mitigate need for suppression for facial defects)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule deterrence balancing — culpability required)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (absence of police culpability disposes deterrence inquiry)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (facial-warrant deficiency in qualified-immunity context; not a categorical bar to good-faith analysis)
- United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. case applying Leon/Sheppard, examining officer’s knowledge in facial-defect contexts)
- Bartholomew v. Pennsylvania, 221 F.3d 425 (warrant particularity: sealing/integrating attachment that lists items to be seized can violate Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Miller, 527 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. factors relevant to knowing receipt of child pornography)
- United States v. Villard, 885 F.2d 117 (adopting Dost factors guidance on "lascivious exhibition")