United States v. William Cannon
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 436
8th Cir.2013Background
- Captain Creek discovered a room behind EZ Credit Auto Sales in Springdale with walls covered in images of a young male and a room with mutilated dolls and a bed, signaling a possible child-pornography operation.
- Detectives Barrios and Hignite observed posters and images, including signs like “kill little boys,” and noted that Cannon had previously told Captain Creek he lived in the rooms.
- Officer Holland initially entered the rooms with Cannon’s consent, forming the impression the rooms were Cannon’s residence, but did not discuss observations with the detectives who prepared the warrant.
- Detectives Barrios and Hignite prepared a warrant affidavit citing information from the initial inspection and Cannon’s statements, and obtained a state-court search warrant covering EZ Credit and a Cannon-owned car.
- Police executed the warrant, seizing numerous images, laptops, video cassettes, and journals; Cannon moved to suppress the items as stemming from an unlawful search, leading to a magistrate judge’s ruling that the initial entry violated the Fourth Amendment but that the exclusionary rule did not apply due to the Leon good-faith exception and potential independent source.
- Cannon subsequently pled guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and two counts of receipt of child pornography, and the district court sentenced him to 840 months with a four-level enhancement for a video depicting sadistic/masochistic conduct; the court affirmed the suppression ruling and the sentence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leon good-faith exception applicability | Cannon argues the initial warrantless entry violated Fourth Amendment rights. | Barrios/Hignite and others contended Leon should apply to validate the warrant despite the initial entry. | Leon applies; suppression denied. |
| Impact of alleged omission about art-book poster on probable cause | Cannon argues omission undermines probable cause. | Detectives relied on broader evidence beyond the poster; omission does not negate probable cause. | No reversible error; totality of evidence supports probable cause. |
| Independent source/exclusionary rule interaction | If Leon applies, independent source may still bar or limit suppression. | Exclusionary rule not required due to Leon and independent-source reasoning. | Leon good-faith exception bars exclusion. |
| Sentencing enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(4) | Video depicts sadistic/masochistic conduct warranting enhancement. | Argues video does not depict ongoing violent conduct; at most aftermath. | Upheld four-level enhancement; video meets sadistic/violent conduct standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable-cause standard for warrants (totality of the circumstances))
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1988) (independent source doctrine applicability in some contexts)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Conner, 127 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 1997) (pre-warrant conduct close to line of validity for Leon analysis)
- United States v. White, 890 F.2d 1413 (8th Cir. 1989) (Leon analysis where warrant based on evidence obtained unlawfully)