United States v. Robert Leland Grant, Jr.
689 F. App'x 935
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013, Robert Leland Grant Jr., a high-school teacher, had a sexual relationship with student MC (born 1996) that included exchanging sexually explicit photos and videos; MC sent nude images taken on her phone when she was 17.
- After allegations surfaced, Grant met with his principal (McGrath) and a retired officer (Callahan), signed a statement, and handed over his phone to Callahan.
- Grant later met with Sheriff’s Sergeant House, was Mirandized, signed waivers consenting to forensic searches of his and his wife’s phones, and provided access codes; a state warrant to search his phone was later obtained.
- Grant was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252A; he pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography (§ 2252A(a)(2)) after the district court denied his suppression motion and dismissed other counts.
- The district court sentenced Grant to 60 months and ordered $8,341.25 restitution to MC for legal fees; Grant appealed denial of suppression and the restitution order (while expressly reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling).
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of consent to search phones | Consent was induced by principal/Callahan statements about leniency and was not voluntary | Consent was voluntary: oral and written consent, waiver of Miranda, provided password, never revoked consent | Court: Consent voluntary under totality of circumstances; no clear error in district court finding |
| Voluntariness of statements (Miranda/Fifth Amendment) | Statements were involuntary due to prior interview by principal/Callahan and coercion | Statements to Sergeant House were made after Miranda warnings and waiver; principal/Callahan were private actors and did not implicate Miranda | Court: Statements to Sergeant House were voluntary and Mirandized; private-actor interview did not trigger Fifth Amendment protections |
| Validity/execution of state search warrant | Warrant execution/return was untimely under state law, so search fruits invalid | Even if warrant timing disputed, suppression denial sustainable on consent and voluntariness grounds | Court: Affirmed suppression denial on voluntariness/consent grounds; did not need to decide warrant-timing issue |
| Restitution for victim’s attorneys’ fees; scope of appeal waiver | Attorneys’ fees were not proximately caused by Grant’s offense; restitution improper; appeal waiver bars review | § 2259 authorizes restitution including attorney’s fees; appeal waiver arguably valid but court reviews merits because waiver colloquy insufficiently specific | Court: Restitution for MC’s legal fees permitted under § 2259 and Paroline; no plain error in award; reviewed merits because plea colloquy did not fully explain waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings to admit statements)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (coercive police activity is necessary to render a confession involuntary under due process)
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (Sup. Ct. 2014) (restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires defendant conduct be proximate cause of victim’s losses; attorney’s fees are a contemplated loss)
- United States v. Zapata, 180 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard for voluntariness of consent to search)
- United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir. 1983) (cooperation hints by non-government actors do not necessarily render consent involuntary)