Course No. 9200 711 001
Th 6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
|Professor Jay Dratler, Jr.||
Room 231D (IP Alcove)
|Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007 Jay Dratler, Jr. For permission, see CMI.|
United States v. Tank
200 F.3d 627 (9th Cir. 2000)
Before: Harry Pregerson and Charles Wiggins, Circuit Judges, and David O. Carter,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Pregerson.
*The Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
[*629] PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant David Vernon Tank appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiring to sexually exploit a child for the purpose of producing a sexually explicit visual depiction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2251(a) and (d); conspiring to engage in the receipt and distribution of sexually explicit images of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2252(a) and (b)(1); and distributing sexually explicit images of a child to another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a).
Specifically, Tank appeals the district court's decisions
regarding: (1) the sufficiency of the foundation for admission into evidence
Tank belonged to a sixteen-member Internet chat room called
the Orchid Club. (3) Members of the Orchid Club discussed,
Ronald Riva, another member of the Orchid Club, was arrested on a child molestation charge. A search of Riva's home and computer files revealed thousands of pornographic pictures of children. The search also revealed computer text files containing "recorded" online chat room discussions that took place among members of the Orchid Club. Riva's computer was programmed to save all of the conversations among Orchid Club members as text files whenever he was online. Before any Orchid Club member was investigated or arrested, Riva had deleted from his computer nonsexual conversations and extraneous material, such as date and time stamps, to decrease the size of the text files and free space on his hard drive. These text files constitute the chat room logs at issue. The evidence seized from Riva implicated other Orchid Club members, including Tank.
Based on this evidence, U.S. Customs agents obtained and
executed an arrest warrant for Tank and a search warrant for his home.
The search warrant did not include Tank's car. Tank was apprehended in
his car less than a block from his house and placed under arrest for
At an evidentiary hearing, Tank argued that the district court should not admit the chat room logs into evidence because the government had laid an insufficient foundation. Tank objected that there was no foundation for admission of the chat room log printouts into evidence because: (1) they were not complete, and (2) undetectable "material alterations," such as changes in either the substance or the names appearing in the chat room logs, could have been made by Riva. The district court ruled that Tank's objection went to the evidentiary weight of the logs rather than to their admissibility, and allowed the logs into evidence.
Tank also moved to suppress the Zip disk found in his car on the ground that it was illegally seized under the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion to suppress because it found that the car search was conducted incident to Tank's arrest.
The jury convicted Tank on all three counts, and the district court sentenced Tank to 235 months of imprisonment.
CHAT ROOM LOGS
We review a district court's finding that evidence is supported
by a proper foundation for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
The government made a prima facie showing of authenticity because it presented evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find that the chat room log printouts were authenticated. In testimony at the evidentiary hearing and at trial, Riva explained how he created the logs with hiscomputer and stated that the printouts, which did not contain the deleted material, appeared to be an accurate representation of the chat room conversations among members of the Orchid Club. See United States v. Catabran, 836 F.2d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1988) ("Any question as to the accuracy of the printouts . . . would have affected only the weight of the printouts, not their admissibility.").
Furthermore, the parties vigorously argued the issue of completeness of the chat room log evidence to the jury. See United States v. Soulard, 730 F.2d 1292, 1298 (9th Cir. 1984) ("Once adequate foundational showings of authenticity and relevancy have been made, the issue of completeness then bears on the Government's burden of proof and is an issue for the jury to resolve.").
The government also established a connection
between Tank and the chat room log printouts. There is no question that
the chat room log
On the record before us, it is clear that the government made an adequate foundational showing of the relevance and the authenticity of the chat room log printouts. Thus, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the printouts into evidence and allowing the jury to decide what weight to give that evidence. (4)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Tank moved to suppress the Zip disk found in his car as the fruit of an illegal search. The district court properly denied the motion, finding that: (1) the car search was incident to Tank's arrest, and (2) it made no difference that the Zip disk was inside a backpack, which was in plain view in the car. (5)
We review a motion to suppress de novo and any factual findings made at the suppression hearing for clear error. . . . We have unequivocally held that the standard for a valid "search incident to arrest" is: "given a lawful arrest, it is enough that the search [of the car]be roughly contemporaneous with the arrest." United States v. Moorehead, 57 F.3d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1995).
It is undisputed that Tank was lawfully arrested. As was the case in Moorehead, the agents had an arrest warrant. The only other requirement for a valid "search incident to arrest" is that the search be "roughly contemporaneous" with the arrest. Here, the arresting officer searched the car within minutes of the arrest, thereby satisfying the requirement that a search incident to a lawful arrest be conducted roughly contemporaneously with the arrest. (6) Because the lawful arrest [*632] and the search were "roughly contemporaneous," the seizure of the Zip disk comported with the Fourth Amendment under the "search incident to arrest" exception.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Tank challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. (7)
Because Tank failed to move for acquittal at trial, we may only review the sufficiency of the evidence for plain error. . . .
The facts do not support a claim of plain error. In fact, the evidence is more than sufficient to sustain his convictions. Therefore, we cannot reverse Tank's convictions for insufficient evidence.
* * *
[The court's discussion of sentencing and application of the Sentencing Guidelines is omitted.]
On the basis of the foregoing, we AFFIRM Tank's convictions.
We REVERSE Tank's sentence in part and REMAND for resentencing
Back to Text
| 2. [court's footnote 3] The only evidentiary issue
raised by Tank concerning the chat room log printouts is whether a proper
foundation was laid for the district court to admit the logs into evidence.
Tank did not argue on appeal that the logs were inadmissible under Fed.
R. Evid. 403 (unfair prejudice or misleading to the jury), 801(d)(2) (party
or co-conspirator admission), 802 (hearsay), 1002 (best evidence), or any
Back to Text
| 3. [court's footnote 4] The Orchid Club was a private,
password protected chat room. We have already summarized the Orchid Club's
activities in deciding an appeal by another of Tank's co-conspirators. See
United States v. Laney, 189 F.3d 954, 957-58 (9th Cir. 1999).|
Back to Text
|4. [court's footnote 5] Tank also argues that this
court should apply the same criteria used to determine the admissibility
of audiotapes produced and proffered by the government to determine whether
Riva's hard drive was properly authenticated. However, even in the context
of audiotapes, the criteria for admissibility are only guidelines that can
be useful when the government produced the recording. . . . Tank's main
argument is that the government should be required to attempt recovery of
deleted data from computer disks (a technological possibility) to ensure
that the files were not materially altered. But any deletions from Riva's
hard drive were made by Riva himself, not by the government. Therefore,
the deletions go to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.
Cf. Soulard, 730 F.2d at 1298 (the issue of completeness bears on the government's
burden of proof). Nothing prevented Tank from recovering the deleted data
to show that "material alterations," if any, were made to the
chat room logs. Tank cannot complain that the governmentoffered into evidence
only the relevant and not the irrelevant portions of the chat room logs.
Tank "had ample opportunity, before and during trial, to examine the
[hard drive] to point out 'missing' [data], yet he declined to make this
examination." Id. at 1298 n.4.|
Back to Text
| 5. [court's footnote 6] Law enforcement officers
are permitted to search the entire passenger compartment of a car, including
the inside of containers, during a "search incident to arrest."
United States v. Ramos-Oseguera, 120 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61, 69 L.Ed. 2d 768, 101 S.Ct. 2860
(1981)). Since the search of Tank's car was a legitimate "search incident
to arrest," it was permissible for the agent to search the backpack
and seize the Zip disk.|
Back to Text
| 6. [court's footnote 7] Tank relies on United States
v. Ramos-Oseguera, for the proposition that the search of his car was not
incident to his arrest because the search was not "roughly contemporaneous"
with the arrest. In Ramos-Oseguera, we held that the search was not incident
to the arrest because it was not "contemporaneous to the arrest."
Ramos-Oseguera does not indicate how much time elapsed between the arrest
and the search, but the only reasonable inference is that considerably more
time passed between the search and arrest in Ramos-Oseguera than in this
case. While we surely meant to describe the amount of time that elapsed
between the search and the arrest rather than to list dispositive facts,
we stated in Ramos-Oseguera that the "search occurred after the car
was moved [to the police station], the defendants were inside the police
station, and the police decided to have the car towed." Tank attempts
to analogize his case to each of these facts, but his arguments miss the
mark. The proper inquiry is whether the arrest was "roughly contemporaneous"
with the search. . . . Here, the search occurred within minutes of the arrest,
immediately after Tank's car was moved less than a block to the carport
of his house; no additional time elapsed between the arrest and the search.|
Back to Text
| 7. [court's footnote 8] Tank also challenges his
conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 because, he contends, no evidence
supports this conviction other than the Zip disk and chat room logs. However,
this argument is vitiated by our determination that the Zip disk and chat
room logs were properly admitted into evidence. |
Back to Text
Back to Top