United States v. William Clarke
842 F.3d 288
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant William Andrew Clarke (alias “Andy/Jaye”) communicated online with an undercover DHS agent posing as a father of two young children and agreed to meet to engage in sexual acts with the children; conversations included requests to meet, specific sexual acts, and instructions for the agent to present Clarke as a friend to the children.
- Clarke arrived at the agreed meeting place and was arrested; Virginia State Police conducted an inventory search of his vehicle, impounded it, and later executed a warrant search uncovering condoms, lubrication, candy, an overnight bag, and a paper with the undercover agent’s number and ages.
- Clarke was indicted and convicted by a jury of attempted coercion/enticement of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); sentenced to 120 months and lifetime supervised release.
- On appeal Clarke challenged: (1) denial of suppression of evidence from the inventory and subsequent warrant searches; (2) a Rule 30(b) violation for not providing jury instructions before closing arguments; (3) the district court’s instruction on the meaning of “induce/persuade/entice”; and (4) sufficiency of the evidence supporting the attempt conviction.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the suppression ruling (factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo), Rule 30(b) prejudice standard, jury-instruction law in light of prior circuit precedent, and sufficiency of the evidence for attempt under § 2422(b).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument (Clarke) | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: Validity of inventory and derivative warrant search | Inventory search lacked standardized criteria and thus was unconstitutional; evidence obtained should be suppressed | Inventory adhered to Virginia State Police written policy and standardized form; search valid under inventory exception | Inventory search met standardized-criteria and good-faith requirements; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Rule 30(b): Failure to disclose jury instructions before closing | Court’s refusal prevented counsel from tailoring argument and preserving objections; caused actual prejudice | Error occurred but defendant not prejudiced because counsel made essential arguments and instruction given matched those arguments | Court violated Rule 30(b) but the violation did not cause actual prejudice; affirmed |
| Jury instruction on “induce/persuade/entice” | Instruction failed to clarify that merely arranging or causing sex (causation) is insufficient; risked convicting without proof of altering minor’s will | Instruction followed circuit precedent (Engle) using ordinary meaning emphasizing persuasion/influence over mere causation | Instruction accurately and fairly stated law (mirrored Engle); no reversible error |
| Sufficiency: Attempt to persuade a minor (direct or via intermediary) | Evidence insufficient to show attempt to persuade minors (only communications with adult) | Communications through an adult intermediary can constitute attempt; facts (directions to use his name, request to speak to children, “take the lead,” candy, explicit sexual requests) amount to intent and substantial steps | Circuit adopts that adult-to-adult communications aimed at persuading a minor fall within §2422(b); evidence was sufficient; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression factual findings)
- United States v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230 (4th Cir.) (inventory-search exception requires standardized criteria and good faith)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory-search principles)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (limits on officer discretion in inventory searches)
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir.) (definition of persuade/induce/entice under § 2422(b))
- United States v. Horton, 921 F.2d 540 (4th Cir.) (Rule 30(b) context and prejudice analysis)
- United States v. McMillan, 744 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir.) (adult-to-adult communications aimed at persuading a minor can fall within § 2422(b))
- United States v. Roman, 795 F.3d 511 (6th Cir.) (communications with intermediary fit within § 2422(b) attempt framework)