Case Information
Before: *1 GUY, and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge. [*]
RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge.
Defendant Robert Ruth was charged in a three-count indictment with receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2); receipt and distribution of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Convinced that the motion to suppress was properly denied, we affirm.
I.
After indictment, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence challenging the
probable cause determination made in issuing the search warrant. The facts were not in
dispute and, after briefing and argument, the district court denied the motion to suppress. The
district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, although due weight should be given
to the inferences drawn from the undisputed facts.
See United States v. Townsend
, 305 F.3d
537, 542 (6th Cir. 2002). Further, this court must view the evidence “in a light most likely
to support the decision of the district court.”
United States v. Frazier
,
A. Facts
The adult adopted son of the defendant went to the Kent, Ohio Police Department on December 18, 2009, and reported that his father possessed a computer which contained numerous images of child pornography. The son, who lived with his father, also turned over to the police a thumb drive containing samples of child pornography that he said he had downloaded from his father’s home computer. During the interview, the police were told that the defendant had told his son that he intended to engage in sex with children and then kill them. Additionally, the son reported both that he had been sexually abused by the defendant as a child and that he suspected the defendant had sexually abused other children. The police, upon completing their interview of the son, then viewed the images on the thumb drive and found they were of child pornography as reported.
The police signed a search warrant affidavit detailing their interview with the son and the contents of the thumb drive. A search warrant was obtained and executed that same day at the home of the defendant who was present at the time of execution. Ruth talked to the police voluntarily and told them he had downloaded child pornography since the 1990s and had traded child pornography with others over the internet. The police seized two computers and numerous other digital media devices, including hundreds of DVDs and 13 flash drives. In an excess of caution, the police then obtained a second warrant allowing the search of the digital devices all of which were found to contain child pornography. In a subsequent interview, Ruth admitted to sexually abusing over 20 children while working as a middle school teacher.
Defendant’s motion to suppress was based on the contention that the search warrant
affidavit did not establish probable cause for the search because the police had no prior
dealings with the son to establish his reliability, and there was no corroboration that the
images contained on the thumb drive were actually taken from the defendant’s computer.
Following a hearing, the district judge concluded that the affidavit provided sufficient
probable cause and ruled, in the alternative, that even if it had not done so, the
Leon
good-
faith exception would apply.
See United States v. Leon
,
B. Analysis
Although the defendant cites to a number of cases, they all simply enunciate time-
honored Fourth Amendment general principles. Not surprisingly, no cases are cited with a
fact situation similar to that found here. The cases cited by defendant, including our decision
in
United States v. Allen
,
Although it is true that the police had no prior dealing with the son, the son fully
identified himself, was not himself a suspect, was put through the crucible of a thorough
interview by the police. In addition, the son presented graphic physical evidence supporting
his allegations. Not to be overlooked is that the alleged wrongdoer was his father, and the son
lived with his father in the house where the computers that stored the child pornography were
located. The circumstantial reliability of what was related to the police can only be described
as enormous. Any person reporting wrongdoing to the police, including an informant who
had provided reliable information 20 times in the past, could be lying. But, as all of the case
law makes clear, a common-sense approach must be taken when evaluating reliability, and
common sense would suggest that the informant was reliable here. The son appeared in
person for a face-to-face interview at the police station. This provided officers with “the
opportunity to observe [his] demeanor and credibility” and to hold him accountable if his story
was later found to have been falsified.
See Henness v. Bagley
,
Defendant makes no attempt to suggest what form corroboration should have taken, but makes a kind of “catch 22” argument asserting a lack of corroboration. That is, while the thumb drive certainly demonstrated that child pornography was involved, the only way to corroborate that the images came from defendant’s computer would be to compare them to images on the computer, and that would require issuance and execution of a search warrant. The district court did not err in finding that the affidavit provided probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in defendant’s home.
Finally, even if it were necessary to consider Leon —which it is not—it is clear that none of the four exceptions to the good-faith rule are present in this case. There was no known false information in the affidavit, the issuing magistrate was neutral and detached, the allegations in the affidavit certainly support the probable cause determination as being reasonable, and the warrant was not facially deficient. There can be no question that the police officer who obtained the warrant was acting in good faith.
AFFIRMED .
Notes
[*] The Honorable Denise Page Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.