United States v. Zodhiates
901 F.3d 137 (2018)
Rule of Law:
The 'good faith' exception to the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained by law enforcement through a subpoena if officers reasonably relied on existing appellate precedent at the time, even if that precedent is later overturned. Additionally, in International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act cases, 'parental rights' are defined by the controlling state court order, regardless of the child's residence at the time of removal, and federal courts must give full faith and credit to such orders.
Facts:
- Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2000 and had a daughter, IMJ, in 2002.
- After their separation in 2003, Miller took IMJ to Virginia, but a Vermont family court awarded Jenkins visitation rights, which Miller repeatedly violated.
- The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed Vermont's jurisdiction over the custody dispute and mandated full faith and credit to Vermont's custody and visitation orders in 2006.
- Following Miller's continued non-compliance and contempt citations, the Vermont family court awarded sole custody of IMJ to Janet Jenkins in November 2009.
- In September 2009, Philip Zodhiates, along with Kenneth Miller and Timothy Miller, helped Lisa Miller kidnap IMJ and flee from Virginia to Nicaragua to obstruct Jenkins' parental rights.
- Zodhiates personally drove Miller and IMJ from Virginia to Buffalo, facilitating their travel to Nicaragua, and later helped Miller and IMJ settle there.
- In 2011, as part of the government's investigation, subpoenas were issued to nTelos Wireless for cell phone billing records associated with Zodhiates' company, which included general service location information.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Miller petitioned a Vermont family court to dissolve her civil union with Janet Jenkins and determine custody of IMJ.
- The Vermont family court initially awarded custody to Miller and visitation rights to Jenkins (2003).
- Janet Jenkins sought to enforce her visitation rights in Virginia courts.
- The Virginia Court of Appeals held that Vermont, not Virginia, had jurisdiction over the custody dispute and ordered Virginia courts to grant full faith and credit to Vermont's orders (2006).
- Following repeated contempt citations against Miller for non-compliance, the Vermont family court awarded sole custody of IMJ to Janet Jenkins and visitation rights to Lisa Miller (November 2009).
- The U.S. Government, investigating Miller's disappearance, issued subpoenas to nTelos Wireless in 2011, seeking billing records for cell phones linked to Philip Zodhiates' company.
- The matter was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, where Philip Zodhiates, Lisa Miller, and Timothy Miller were indicted for violating the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.
- Zodhiates moved in District Court to suppress the cell phone evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment without a warrant, but the District Court denied this motion, relying on United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland.
- Near the end of the trial, Zodhiates objected to the prosecutor's rebuttal summation and requested a curative instruction regarding the relevance of Virginia law to parental rights, which the District Court denied.
- The District Court also denied Zodhiates' post-trial motion for a new trial (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33), which included challenges to the jury instructions and the prosecutor's summation.
- A jury found Zodhiates guilty on both counts of the indictment.
- The District Court sentenced Zodhiates principally to 36 months of incarceration.
- Zodhiates appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule require the suppression of cell phone location information obtained via subpoena when law enforcement collected the evidence in good faith reliance on then-existing appellate precedent that was later superseded by Carpenter v. United States? 2. Did the District Court err in instructing the jury that 'parental rights' for an International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act prosecution were defined by Vermont law, rather than Virginia law, and in refusing a curative instruction regarding the prosecutor's summation on the relevance of Virginia law?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrington D. Parker, Circuit Judge
No, the District Court properly denied Zodhiates' motion to suppress the cell phone location information because the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule applied. At the time the government obtained the records in 2011, law enforcement officers acted with an objectively reasonable good-faith belief that their conduct was lawful, relying on existing appellate precedent. Specifically, the 'third-party doctrine' established in United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland permitted obtaining cell records via subpoena without a warrant, as individuals had no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to third parties. Although Carpenter v. United States later held that a warrant is generally required for cell service location information, this Supreme Court decision came after the government's action and therefore does not retroactively apply to invalidate the officers' good-faith reliance on prior law. No, the District Court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the definition of 'parental rights' or in denying a curative instruction following the prosecutor's summation. The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act defines 'parental rights' to include rights arising from a court order, and a Vermont court order unequivocally afforded Janet Jenkins parental rights. Furthermore, Virginia courts had explicitly recognized Vermont's jurisdiction over the custody dispute and ordered full faith and credit to Vermont's orders, making Vermont law the controlling authority. The court found United States v. Amer distinguishable because it applied only in the absence of a court order. Zodhiates could not demonstrate prejudice, as the District Court's charge did not preclude the defense from arguing or the jury from considering the impact of the Virginia litigation on Zodhiates' intent. The prosecutor's summation remarks were considered permissible factual interpretations of the evidence, and the jury instructions adequately guided the jury on determining Zodhiates' knowledge and intent.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the application of the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule, particularly in the context of evolving Fourth Amendment jurisprudence regarding new technologies. It demonstrates that law enforcement actions taken in reasonable reliance on established legal precedent at the time will generally not lead to suppression, even when subsequent Supreme Court rulings alter the legal landscape. For IPKCA cases, the ruling clarifies that federal courts will defer to and uphold controlling state court orders defining parental rights, especially when those orders have received full faith and credit from other states, thus limiting a defendant's ability to challenge the source or validity of such rights based on conflicting state laws or temporary residence.
