United States v. McCarty
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143220, 2011 WL 6181212, 835 F. Supp. 2d 938 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence discovered during the lawful portion of an administrative search can provide probable cause for an arrest, even if the searching agents also conducted an unlawful, overbroad search of other materials. A defendant's subsequent consent to search and waiver of Miranda rights are valid if, under the totality of the circumstances, they were made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Facts:
- Simon Jasper McCarty, a United Kingdom national, was traveling by air from Hilo to Honolulu.
- During a routine security screening of McCarty's checked luggage, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) flagged his Travel Pro bag for a manual inspection.
- While TSA screener Dorina Andrade was inspecting the bag, she removed a laptop, which caused an envelope to slide out and spill some of its contents.
- The contents of the envelope included numerous photographs of nude and partially clothed prepubescent children, as well as handwritten notes and newspaper clippings.
- Andrade and another screener, Jenny Moniz, viewed the photographs as part of their administrative search for safety threats.
- The screeners also read the handwritten notes and newspaper clippings, which was beyond the scope of a lawful administrative search.
- Based on the photographs they viewed, the TSA screeners contacted airport law enforcement, who in turn contacted the Hawaii County Police Department (HCPD).
- An HCPD officer reviewed the materials and arrested McCarty for promotion of child abuse.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Simon Jasper McCarty was charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii.
- McCarty filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained from the August 5, 2008 airport search.
- The district court granted the Motion to Suppress, finding the TSA search was unconstitutionally overbroad and that the government had not established what evidence was seen during the permissible portion of the search.
- The United States, as the appellee, appealed the suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, as the intermediate appellate court, vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- The Ninth Circuit held that photographs viewed by screeners as part of their lawful administrative search could be considered in making the probable cause determination, and instructed the district court to re-evaluate the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Following remand from the Ninth Circuit, does the discovery of child pornography photographs by TSA agents during the lawful portion of an administrative search establish probable cause for arrest, thereby rendering the defendant's subsequent consent to search and Miranda waiver valid?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Michael Seabright
Yes. The lawful discovery of child pornography photographs during the administrative search established probable cause for the arrest, and the defendant's subsequent consent and waiver were valid. The court's reasoning proceeded in several steps as directed by the Ninth Circuit. First, the court determined which photographs the TSA screeners lawfully viewed as part of their administrative search. Based on the credible testimony of multiple witnesses, the court found that the screeners necessarily viewed specific photographs that clearly depicted child pornography (Gov't Exhibits 2 or 3). Second, the court held that these photographs, which focused on the children's genitalia, were sufficient under the totality of the circumstances to warrant a prudent person in believing that McCarty had committed the offense of promoting child abuse, thus establishing probable cause for his arrest. Third, the court analyzed the defendant's consent to search his luggage and found it was voluntary under a five-factor test, despite his being in custody. The detective's statements about obtaining a warrant were a truthful response to a question, not a coercive threat, and his suggestion that McCarty might be released sooner was not a false promise. Finally, the court found McCarty's waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing and intelligent. The detective's explanation that an appointed lawyer could not be provided immediately was an accurate statement of procedure under Duckworth v. Eagan and did not vitiate the Miranda warning, especially since the detective clarified that all questioning would cease if McCarty invoked his right to counsel.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the application of the exclusionary rule in cases involving a mixed-lawful and unlawful search. It clarifies that unconstitutional actions by law enforcement during a search do not automatically taint evidence that was discovered within the lawful scope of that same search. The court's analysis demonstrates how lawfully obtained evidence can be segregated to form an independent basis for probable cause, thereby breaking the causal chain required for the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine to apply to subsequent evidence. Furthermore, the opinion provides a detailed, fact-specific application of the 'totality of the circumstances' tests for voluntary consent and Miranda waivers, offering guidance on how these standards apply to foreign nationals who may be unfamiliar with the U.S. justice system.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. McCarty