United States v. Wilson
217 F. Supp. 3d 165
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Pamela Kirea Wilson was charged by complaint with one count of distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) after an FBI/MPD undercover agent (UC) engaged her in online communications and accessed her Dropbox account.
- The UC posed via an ad aimed at persons with sexual interest in children; Wilson identified herself, exchanged texts, sent photos that matched DMV records, and provided her Dropbox email and password to the UC.
- The UC accessed the Dropbox and viewed/downloaded multiple folders containing videos and images of child pornography (initially 1.4 GB, later 2.4 GB across folders labeled suggestively). Wilson directed the UC to specific files and discussed sexual activity with purported minors, and solicited videos of sexual abuse.
- Wilson admitted at arrest that she created and used the Dropbox to store and share child pornography, provided the credentials to the UC, and had been previously investigated (and earlier searched) in Virginia for distributing child pornography via KiK.
- The magistrate judge found probable cause to believe Wilson distributed child pornography and, because the charge involved a minor, triggered the statutory rebuttable presumption of dangerousness under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E), ordered pretrial detention by clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause supports a §2252(a)(2) distribution charge | Govt: Wilson supplied login credentials and directed UC to files; UC accessed/viewed/downloaded child pornography — conduct constitutes distribution | Wilson: She only gave access (like a curator); distribution requires an actual transfer/download (citing Husmann) | Probable cause found. Court held providing access and directing UC to files (which were accessed/downloaded) suffices as distribution under §2252(a)(2) |
| Whether pretrial release can be set despite rebuttable presumption of dangerousness for offenses involving minors | Govt: Presumption applies; facts (solicitation of sexual abuse, prior similar conduct, large collection, intent to meet) support detention | Wilson: Proposed supervised release at her mother’s home or HISP with monitoring; argued presumption should be rebutted | Presumption not rebutted. Court found (by clear and convincing evidence) that no conditions would reasonably assure community safety and ordered detention |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Husmann, 765 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2014) (defendant’s availability of files on a network without evidence they were accessed distinguishes distribution)
- United States v. Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265 (9th Cir. 2012) (making files available that are subsequently taken constitutes distribution)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a practical, flexible concept based on the totality of the circumstances)
- Coleman v. Burnett, 477 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (probable cause standard defined)
- Blue v. United States, 342 F.2d 894 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (purpose of preliminary hearing includes testing probable cause)
- United States v. Altishe, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (defendant’s burden of production to rebut statutory presumption under §3142)
- United States v. Salerno, 489 U.S. 739 (1989) (danger to the community alone can justify pretrial detention)
- United States v. Ali, 793 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.D.C. 2011) (presumption incorporated into bail determination and given substantial weight)
- United States v. Bess, 678 F. Supp. 929 (D.D.C. 1988) (Congress’ view on risks posed by detainees charged with offenses carrying the presumption)