United States v. Walters
678 F. App'x 44
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Edward Thomas was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §1594(c)) and two counts of sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §1591). He was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent.
- FBI agents entered a Howard Johnson hotel to recover a runaway minor. Agents entered Room 205 without a warrant and later entered Room 202 after a minor in 205 gave consent; they seized a laptop bag, laptop, cell phone, and cash.
- Thomas moved to suppress evidence seized from his person and the hotel rooms, arguing lack of exigent circumstances, invalid consent, lack of probable cause for plain-view seizures, and unlawful prolonged detention for seizures from his person.
- At the suppression hearing, agents testified about finding the minor naked in Room 205, the minor’s statements that her belongings and clothes were in Room 202, and agents’ belief the electronics and cash were connected to trafficking activity.
- Thomas also challenged prosecutorial opening statements (arguing they were argumentative) and the admission of rap videos portraying Thomas using vulgar references to prostitution, arguing Rule 403 prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless entry into Room 205 (exigent circumstances) | Government: agents reasonably believed minor’s safety required immediate entry | Thomas: no warrant; exigency insufficient | Court: exigent circumstances justified entry into Room 205 |
| Consent to enter Room 202 / voluntariness | Government: minor had apparent authority and voluntarily consented | Thomas: consent invalid / coerced | Court: minor had apparent authority; consent was voluntary |
| Plain-view seizure and probable cause to seize laptop bag, laptop, phone, cash | Government: items observed and reasonably connected to trafficking; risk of spoliation supported seizure | Thomas: no probable cause for seizure | Court: probable cause existed for plain-view seizures (laptop bag etc.) |
| Seizure of phone and cash from Thomas after lobby detention (Fourth Amendment) | Government: detention was brief and agents diligently pursued investigation; safety and spoliation concerns justified seizure | Thomas: detention extended and seizures violated Fourth Amendment | Court: reviewed for plain error; no reversible error — detention lawful and, in any event, admission of items not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence |
| Prosecutor’s opening statements | Government: statements explained evidence jury would not hear | Thomas: statements were overly argumentative and prejudicial | Court: statements brief and cured by judge; harmless error if any |
| Admission of rap videos (Rule 403 prejudice vs probative value on intent/knowledge) | Government: videos probative of intent/knowledge re: trafficking and dealing with minors | Thomas: videos more prejudicial than probative; should be excluded | Court: abused-discretion standard not met; videos admissible and any error harmless given other abundant evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edelman, 726 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo)
- United States v. Gilliam, 842 F.3d 801 (2d Cir. 2016) (exigent-circumstances justification for warrantless entry to protect safety)
- United States v. McGee, 564 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2009) (apparent authority by third party to consent to entry)
- United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2004) (factors for voluntariness of consent)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (probable cause focuses on probabilities, not certainties)
- United States v. Cook, 722 F.3d 477 (2d Cir. 2013) (plain-error review framework on appeals)
- United States v. Bailey, 743 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 2014) (temporary detention lawful while police diligently pursue means to confirm or dispel suspicions)
- United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) (standard for evaluating length and reasonableness of investigatory detention)
- United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings; new-trial harmlessness test)
- United States v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832 (2d Cir.) (rap lyrics admissible when relevant and probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice)