Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 10-4670
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00510-LMB-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
March 4, 2011
PER CURIAM:
Following a bench trial, Scott Christopher Howe was
found guilty of three counts of exploiting a minor child for the
purpose of producing a visual depiction of that exploitation,
the production of which was accomplished using materials that
had been transported in and affected interstate, in violation of
18
U.S.C.A.
2251(a)
(West
2000
&
Supp.
2010).
Howe
was
Congress
exceeded
its
authority
under
the
Commerce
this
orders,
For
although
we
the
reasons
affirm
the
that
follow,
order
denying
we
affirm
the
both
motion
to
I.
Taken in the light most favorable to the Government,
United States v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 193, 195 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010),
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
on
Howes
to
At approximately 3:30
motion
the
Fauquier
County
Sheriffs
Office
was
dispatched
to
While in
Cottrells
escorted
Healy
onto
the
property
to
Healy
experience,
other
evidence
of
drug
activity
is
usually
At
bedroom.
In
the
course
of
securing
that
weapon,
the
Suspicions
Healy then
spoke with Howe, who confirmed that the videos were of sexual
acts between him and a male.
its
written
memorandum
denying
the
motion
to
The
Thus, the
court found it was reasonable for Healy to believe that they had
the authority to grant him entrance as well.
II.
On appeal, Howe first argues that the district court
erred, as a matter of law, in finding Healy reasonably relied on
the
Cottrells
warrantless
invitation
entry.
onto
This
court
the
property
reviews
the
to
justify
district
his
courts
United States v.
search
unless
conducted
it
requirement.
(1973).
falls
without
within
Schneckloth
warrant
valid
v.
is
per
exception
Bustamonte,
412
se
to
unreasonable
the
U.S.
warrant
218,
219
the backyard that Healy entered to view the marijuana plants was
within the curtilage of the rented property, and absent exigent
circumstances, a warrantless search of curtilage is prohibited.
United States v. Van Dyke, 643 F.2d 992, 993-94 (4th Cir. 1981).
Because it is clear that there were no exigent circumstances
here, the issue is whether the Cottrells had the authority to
permit Healys entrance. 3
evidence
obtained
via
third-party
consent
so
long
as
the
U.S. 177, 188 (1990); see United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d
551, 555 (4th Cir. 2007).
546 (4th Cir. 2005); see Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610,
616-17 (1961).
the Cottrells were the landlords of the property, which they had
rented to Howe.
has
product
of
authorized
an
the
unlawful
admission
search
or
of
evidence
seizure
so
The Supreme
that
is
the
long
as
the
time between the illegal act and the seizure of evidence; (2)
whether
there
gravity,
were
flagrancy,
intervening
circumstances;
and
for
reason
the
and
police
(3)
the
misconduct.
United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 548 (4th Cir. 1998)
(citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975)).
Our
There was
for
consent
to
search.
Further,
Howes
voluntary
the
evidence).
curtilage
of
Finally,
Howes
Healys
property,
warrantless
while
entrance
unlawful,
was
Id. at 550.
Accordingly, we
III.
Howe next argues the district court erred in denying
his motion to dismiss the indictment, which was predicated on
his
challenge
to
the
constitutionality
of
2251(a).
This
an
instrument
that
traveled
in
or
affected
interstate
district
court
properly
concluded
that
this
v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied,
130 S. Ct. 1736 (2010); United States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73,
78-79 (4th Cir. 2005).
IV.
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
we
affirm
the
district
courts
order
denying
8
the
motion
to
suppress
on
modified grounds.
518-19 (4th Cir. 2005) (We are not limited to evaluation of the
grounds offered by the district court to support its decision,
but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.).
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED