United States v. Black

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LANDON JOE BLACK, Defendant.

No. 23-CR-183-JFH

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

November 27, 2023

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is an Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order and Brief in Support (together, “Appeal”) filed by the United States of America (the “Government”). Dkt. Nos. 23, 34. The Government asks the Court to review and reverse the order of United States Magistrate Judge D. Edward Snow (“Judge Snow”) setting conditions of release as to Defendant Landon Joe Black (“Defendant”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145. Id. Defendant filed a response in opposition to the Government's Appeal asking the Court to affirm Judge Snow's order setting conditions of release. Dkt. No. 42. As required, the Court will conduct a de novo review. United States v Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 2003).

BACKGROUND

On October 12, 2023, Defendant was charged by indictment with four counts: two counts of Sexual Exploitation of a Child/ Use of a Child to Produce a Visual Depiction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (e); one count of Advertisement of Certain Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 2251(d) and (e); and one count of Possession of Certain Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Dkt. No. 2. Defendant's initial appearance and arraignment were held on October 25, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 12 13. At that time, Defendant moved for detention hearing which was set for October 30, 2023. Dkt. No. 18. At the detention hearing, the Government offered the testimony of Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Special Agent Austin McCourt (“Agent McCourt”). Dkt. No. 33. Additionally, both parties proffered evidence and presented argument. Id.

Agent McCourt testified that the FBI had launched an investigation into a website located on the Tor network, otherwise known as the dark web, after a foreign law enforcement entity informed the FBI that an IP address in the United States had been frequenting the website. Dkt. No. 33 at 4:15-16; 5:9-11. The website was used as a forum for discussions regarding sexual interest in pubescent and prepubescent boys and for the exchange of child pornography. Id. at 4:20-25; 5:1. The IP address was linked to a user (the “Subject User”) who had posted to the website several times with links to images and videos of child pornography. Id. at 6:5-23. The posts explained that the Subject User had obtained the material by “baiting, ” or “catfishing, ” minor males into producing sexual imagery of themselves and then sending it to the Subject User. Id. at 6:18-25; 7:1-2. In this context, “baiting” involves creating a fake social media account purporting to be a minor female, contacting a minor male on social media using the fake account, and then convincing the minor male to produce and send sexual imagery of himself to the fake account. Dkt. No. 33 at 6:18-25; 7:1-2.

FBI agents determined that the Subject User's IP address was linked to a residence in Stillwell, Oklahoma and belonged to the internet subscriber Shelia Black, Defendant's mother. Id. at 5:9-11; 7:6-9, 12-15. The FBI obtained and executed a search warrant on the Stillwell residence, seizing computers, laptops, cellphones, and flash drives belonging to Defendant. Id. at 7:22-25; 8:1-6. Additionally, search warrants were obtained for Defendant's Google, Apple, and iCloud accounts. Id. Agent McCourt explained that information obtained as a result of the search warrants directly linked Defendant to the Subject User. Id. at 8:1-17.

Additionally, two minor males were identified and forensically interviewed by FBI agents as part of the investigation. Dkt. No. 33 at 9:2-6. Minor Victim One (“MV1”) disclosed that he was contacted via Instagram by an account under the name “Emily Jansen, ” who he believed to be a fourteen year old female. Id. at 9:9-14. MV1 identified images that he had produced and sent to “Emily Jansen” from images that were recovered on Defendant's devices. Id. Likewise, Minor Victim Two (“MV2”) disclosed that he was contacted via Snapchat by an account under the name “Jenna Whitely, ” who MV2 believed to be a minor female. Id. at 9:17-21. MV2 also identified images that he had produced and sent to “Jenna Whitely” from images that were recovered from Defendant's devices. Dkt. No. 33 at 9:20-21. Further, usernames, passwords, profile pictures, and other account information for the “Emily Jansen” and “Jenna Whitely” social media accounts were found on Defendant's devices, along with a document titled “Girls List Names” which included the name “Jenna Whitely.” Id. at 10:3-25;11:1-21.

Additionally on Defendant's devices, FBI agents found a folder titled “The Vault, ” which contained a significant amount of child sexual abuse material. Dkt. No. 33 at 13:2-11. Agents also discovered documents on Defendant's devices with personal identification information for various minor males, including names, birthdays, addresses, family member information, and information regarding school districts and class schedules. Id. at 15:21-25; 16:1-10; 18:2-10. Finally, agents determined that the IP address had been the subject of approximately fourteen cyber tips related to child sexual abuse material dating back to 2019 and further found a document on Defendant's devices in which he stated that he “believed he was a pedophile at the age of 15.” Id. at 14:7-9; 15:3-4; 18:11-18.

In response, defense counsel proffered evidence that Defendant has significant ties to his community. Dkt. No. 33 at 30-31. In particular, Pastor Gary Flynn and Deacon Dan Kirk of Salem Baptist Church wrote letters in support of Defendant and his character noting their belief that Defendant “is overall a good individual[, ] . . . has a good attitude, and [is] willing to help whenever he's needed.” Id. at 30:21-25; 31:1-8. Defense counsel further proffered evidence that Defendant would continue to reside with his parents while on pretrial release and that his parents have agreed to ensure his compliance “with all court orders and bond conditions” and ensure his presence at all future court dates. Id. at 31:9-15.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Snow found that the Government had failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that there were no conditions or combination of conditions which would assure the appearance of Defendant and protect the safety of any other person or the community. Dkt. No. 33 at 48:3-9. Judge Snow explained that while the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged were serious and the weight of the evidence against Defendant was substantial, this did not outweigh Defendant's history and characteristics, nor the Government's failure to demonstrate the nature and seriousness of the danger to others posed by Defendant's release. Id. at 49:8-17. In particular, Judge Snow noted that Defendant has no prior criminal history and had not engaged in any further criminal or concerning behavior since the search warrant was executed on his residence in connection with the charged crimes in December of 2022. Id. at 49:18-25. Judge Snow also noted that Defendant did not have a history of violence or substance abuse, but rather had a stable residence, significant ties to the community, and parents who agreed to serve as his custodians and transportation. Id. at 50:1-17. Noting that the charged crimes were exclusively committed via electronic means, Judge Snow found that conditions of pretrial release, including home detention and computer monitoring, could reasonably protect the safety of the community from further crimes by Defendant. Dkt. No. 33 at 18-24.

The Government announced its intention to appeal Judge Snow's order on the record and filed its summary appeal that day. Id. at 55:7-9; Dkt. No. 32. Following a briefing scheduling order entered by this Court, the Government filed its brief in support on November 6, 2023 and Defendant filed his response on November 13, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 28, 34, 42.

STANDARD

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a), “[i]f a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge . . . the attorney for the government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release[.]” 18 U.S.C. 3145(a). Upon such an appeal by the government, the district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's release order and make “an independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions for release.” Cisneros, 328 F.3d at 613. There is no statutory requirement for a hearing, and the district court may make its determination on the briefing alone. Id. at 617.

Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, the Court must order a defendant's pretrial release, with or without conditions unless it “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). In making this determination, the Court must consider:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device;

(2) The weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) The history and characteristic of the person, including - a. The person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse,

...