United States v. Adams

1

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeremy Adams, Defendant.

No. 3:21-cr-504

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

August 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge.

I. Introduction

Defendant Jeremy Adams is charged with sexual exploitation of a minor (production of child pornography), in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2251(a). (Doc. Nos. 1 and 10). Adams previously moved, through counsel, to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence in Lodi, California, as well as evidence obtained during subsequently searches of property seized during the initial search. (Doc. No. 17). I denied that motion. (Doc. No. 34).

Adams now is representing himself with the assistance of stand-by counsel. (See nondocument entry dated September 6, 2022). He has filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him for allegedly violating the Constitution, (Doc. No. 36), a motion to dismiss for alleged prosecutorial misconduct and for a Franks hearing, (Doc. No. 37), and a motion to reconsider and renew his motion to suppress. (Doc. No. 38). I deemed those motions as filed on September 6, 2022, and set the deadline for the government's opposition brief as October 4, 2022, and for Adams' reply briefs as November 4, 2022. (See non-document entry dated Sept. 6, 2022).

The government timely filed its briefs in opposition to Adams' motions on October 3, 2022. (Doc. Nos. 50, 51, and 52). On October 26, 2022, Adams filed a motion for an extension of time, stating he had not received responses to his discovery requests and needed time to review that discovery before filing his reply briefs. (Doc. No. 59). Shortly thereafter, the government filed a motion for a protective order to limit the dissemination of certain discovery in the case. (Doc. No. 61).

Adams did not object to the imposition of protections on personal or sensitive information provided in discovery, though he argued the government should not be permitted to utilize the confidentiality designation in the first instance. (Doc. No. 65). I granted the government's motion for a protective order and also granted Adams' motion for an extension of time to file his reply briefs, ordering that he file them “within 30 days of the date on which the government updates its discovery disclosures, consistent with the forthcoming protective order.” (Doc. No. 70 at 2).

Subsequent issues with access to the protected information were collaboratively addressed by Adams' standby counsel, counsel for the government, and the institution in which Adams is detained while awaiting trial, and Adams filed his reply briefs on April 19, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 76 and 77). Then, on May 8, 2023, Adams filed a 12-page “objection” to what he describes as “false facts and accusations” in this case, many of which involve Adams' version of the events preceding the issuance of the California search warrants. (Doc. No. 82). Two weeks later, on May 22, 2023, Adams filed a motion to expand a pretrial hearing set for May 25, 2023, to include a hearing on his motions for reconsideration and to dismiss the indictment, as well as for a hearing related to his request for pretrial release. (Doc. No. 86). Adams filed a second motion on the same date, seeking to prohibit the government from using the term “victim” at trial. (Doc. No. 87).

During the May 25, 2023 pretrial, I granted the government's request for a period of 21 days in which to respond to Adams' motion for a hearing. Further, at Adams' request, I ordered that he file his reply brief to the government's response within 7 days after the government filed its brief. After the hearing, the parties engaged in additional efforts to ensure Adams had appropriate access to discovery in this case. Based upon the timing of the arrangements made, I ordered that Adams be granted leave until July 15, 2023, to file any additional pretrial motions or supplement his pending motions. (Doc. No. 90). I also set deadlines of June 15, 2023, for the government's briefs in opposition to Adams' motions for a hearing and regarding the use of the term “victim,” and of July 1, 2023, for Adams' briefs in reply. (Id.).

Adams subsequently filed seven more motions: (1) a motion to adjust the pretrial motion deadline and to set a trial date, (Doc. No. 93); (2) a motion for the return of property, (Doc. No. 100); (3) a motion to renew his request for a technology expert, (Doc. No. 101); (4) a motion “to copy government withheld devices,” (Doc. No. 102); (5) a second motion for a trial date and an objection to an ends of justice continuance entered on June 5, 2023, (Doc. No. 104); (6) a motion “to follow party presentation principle,” (Doc. No. 110); and (7) a second motion to set an evidentiary hearing on his motion for reconsideration and a pretrial release hearing. (Doc. No. 117).

For the reasons stated below, I deny each of Adams' motions.

II. Background

I previously summarized the factual history of this case as follows:

On October 15, 2019, Adams walked into a coffee shop in Brentwood, California, to pick up a girl he had met online. (See Doc. No. 17-1). Instead, Adams was confronted by three juvenile males who had pretended to be the 14-year-old girl with whom Adams thought he had been corresponding. Adams left the coffee shop, with the three juveniles in pursuit. Eventually, the four ended up outside of a nearby elementary school. Officers from the Brentwood, California Police Department made contact with Adams and the juveniles at that location.

The juveniles told the officers that they first made contact with Adams through Tinder (an online dating networking application) a few weeks before the meeting. (See id.; Doc. No. 17-4 at 1-7). One of the juveniles had created a fake Tinder profile, posing as an 18-year-old girl in order to emulate the television show “To Catch A Predator.” Adams acknowledged he went to the coffee shop to meet the girl^[1] he met through Tinder but told officers he thought the girl was 18 because that was the age listed on her Tinder profile. (Doc. No. 17-1 at 6).

The investigation, however, revealed this was not true.^[2] After the conversation moved (at Adams' request) to an app called “Textfree,” the girl told Adams she was 15 years old. (Id.). Adams responded that he “‘kind of loved that.'” (Id.). Over the course of the next few weeks, Adams and the girl had multiple conversations about engaging in sexual activity. Adams told the girl he wanted her to send him a video of her saying his name to prove she was not a police officer, so the juveniles recorded their 12-year-old sister saying Adams' name and sent the video to him. Adams “required [the girl] . . . to send numerous photos” and also told her to send him nude pictures of herself. (Id. at 6-7).

Adams and the girl also discussed plans to meet in person and engage in sexual activity. Eventually, they agreed to meet at the Brentwood coffee shop. The juveniles had one of their friends wear a blonde wig and sit facing away from the door. Once Adams entered the coffee shop, the juveniles confronted him. Adams left. The juveniles followed him outside and ultimately to the elementary school, where the police arrived.

For reasons not reflected in the record, approximately nine months passed before Joseph Nunemaker, a detective with the Brentwood Police Department, sought a warrant for Adams' arrest. California law permits police officers to request that a judge issue a probable cause arrest warrant, known as a “Ramey” warrant. On July 21, 2020, Judge Lewis A. Davis of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, California issued a Ramey warrant for Adams, concluding there was probable cause to believe Adams arranged to meet someone he believed to be a minor and went to the meeting place for the purpose of engaging in lewd acts, in violation of California Penal Code § 288.4(b). (Doc. No. 28 at 1-3).

A week later, on July 28, 2020, Nunemaker requested, and Judge Davis issued, a search warrant for a residential property located in Lodi, California, as well as for various electronic devices belonging to Davis or found in his possession. (See Doc. No. 17-1). Officers executed both warrants the following day. Adams was placed under arrest and officers seized a total of 12 electronic devices from the property, including laptop and desktop computers, external hard drives, and cell phones. (Doc. No. 17-2 at 2).

On one of the hard drives, Nunemaker located a folder titled “Pictures.” Within that folder, Nunemaker found a subfolder containing photographs and videos “of a very young female in various sexual poses and performing various sexual acts” with a man who looked like Adams. Nunemaker searched the metadata of several of the files and determined the files were created in 2017 near Swanton, Ohio.

(See Doc. No. 17-4 at 8-9). The Brentwood Police Department contacted the Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) office located in San Francisco, California to assist with locating the female in the images and with further investigation. HSI obtained search warrants for the 12 electronic devices and for an email account Adams maintained. (See Doc. Nos. 17-2 and 17-3).

HSI located the female depicted in the files on the hard drive and determined she was 17 years old at the time the photos and videos were taken.

(Doc. No. 34 at 1-3).

III. Analysis

A. Motion to Dismiss Charge as Unconstitutional

Adams first argues that the § 2251(a) charge violates the First Amendment because the images arose from a consensual sexual relationship between two individuals who were over the age of consent under Ohio law. (Doc. No. 36 at 4-5). But Adams was not charged because he engaged in sexual conduct with someone under the age of 18, he was charged because he admittedly,...