United States v. Jackson

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN ALEXIS JACKSON, Appellant

No. 23-1615

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

June 7, 2024

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Argued May 16, 2024

On Appeal from the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands (No. 3-19-cr-00015-001) U.S. Chief District Judge Honorable Robert A. Molloy

Matthew M. Robinson [Argued] Robinson & Brandt Counsel for Appellant John Alexis Jackson

Adam Sleeper [Argued] Natasha Baker Delia L. Smith Office of United States Attorney Counsel for Appellee United States of America

Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION ^[*]

SHWARTZ, CIRCUIT JUDGE

John Alexis Jackson appeals his convictions for various child sex-related crimes. For the following reasons, we will affirm.

I

Jackson, an adult residing in St. Thomas, had a sexual relationship with three minors over the course of two years. On approximately eight or more occasions, he met sixteen-year-old Jane Doe 3 at her high school and drove her to his apartment, where they had sex. Jackson once asked Jane Doe 3 to have a threesome with him and one of her classmates, and Jane Doe 3 contacted fourteen-year-old Jane Doe 2. Jackson later drove them both to his apartment, where they had sex. After that encounter, Jackson continued relations with Jane Doe 2, driving her to a parking lot approximately twice per week to have sex over the course of several months.

Jane Doe 2 later introduced Jackson to fourteen-year-old Jane Doe 1, with whom Jackson had sex approximately seven times, beginning on her fifteenth birthday. In addition, for his thirtieth birthday, she acceded to Jackson's request for oral sex.

Another time, Jackson drove Jane Doe 1 to his apartment in a red Acura and used her cellphone to film them having sex in his bedroom without her knowledge. Afterwards, they watched the video together. Jane Doe 1 told him that she did not want the video on her phone, and he said that he would delete it after sending a copy of it to himself. Less than a month later, Jane Doe 1 told law enforcement about Jackson's activities, including that Jackson used her phone to videotape one of their sexual encounters.^[1] Law enforcement found the sex video on Jane Doe's phone, stored in a "recently deleted folder[.]" App. 626. Jane Doe 1 identified herself and Jackson's hand in a screenshot of the video.

Law enforcement then obtained a warrant to search Jackson's residence and car. The warrant application included an affidavit from Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") Special Agent Alicia Blyden, which, in addition to attesting to the details regarding the videotaped incident, stated that (1) Jane Doe 1 directed Special Agent Blyden to the location of Jackson's apartment, confirmed that the sexual encounter occurred there, and provided a drawing and details about where the apartment was situated within the structure; (2) Special Agent Blyden later traveled to the house where she saw a red Acura parked in front of the residence, matching the car Jane Doe 1 described during the interview; (3) most child pornography collectors retain their pornography indefinitely and safeguard it from discovery, damage, or theft; (4) such persons often maintain hardcopy or digital writings on the subject of sex with children; and (5) to perform a complete search for relevant materials contained on a phone or computer, agents typically must seize all electronic storage systems, and any input and output peripheral devices.^[2] The warrant's cover sheet permitted officials to search Jackson's residence and vehicle for evidence of violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) (sexual exploitation of children), 2252A (certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography), and 2252(a) (certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors). The application and warrant submitted to the Magistrate Judge also contained Attachment A, which described the places to be searched, i.e., Jackson's apartment and Acura, and Attachment B, which listed the items to be seized.^[3]

Before executing the warrant, Special Agent Blyden met with the search team and provided an overview of the case and the search's scope. Special Agent Blyden led the search and decided which items to seize, which included: (1) a leafy substance and brownies that tested positive for marijuana, along with other drug paraphernalia; (2) a tiger-print pillow and gold bracelet that appeared in the sex video; and (3) cellphones and iPads. Special Agent Blyden had the warrant's cover page, affidavit, and Attachments on hand during the search, but left Jackson and his counsel (who came to the house during the search) with copies of only the warrant's cover page and an inventory of the items seized, which she said was her practice.

A grand jury returned an indictment charging Jackson with, among other things, production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) ("Count One"), and three counts of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) ("Counts Two, Three, and Four"). Jackson moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home. The District Court denied the motion to suppress, except as to the brownies. See United States v. Jackson, No. 3:19-cr-0015, 2021 WL 27458, at *15 (D.V.I. Jan. 4, 2021). It held that the warrant was supported by a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed and explained that, although Special Agent Blyden's failure to provide Jackson the Attachments rendered the warrant insufficiently particularized, suppression was not warranted as her omission did not undermine the purposes of the particularity requirement.^[4] Id. at *6, 10-11. The Court also held the pillow, bracelet, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia were validly seized under the plain view doctrine. Id. at *12-13.

At trial, the Jane Does testified as to the above-noted facts concerning their relationships with Jackson, an agent testified that the sex video's data revealed that it was taken in the vicinity of Jackson's home and another officer testified about the statements Jackson made to law enforcement. In addition, the jury saw the sex video, pillow, gold bracelet, and Jackson's text messages with Jane Doe 1. The jury convicted Jackson on all counts, and the District Court sentenced him to 300 months' imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the order denying his suppression motion and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions on Counts One through Four. We address each in turn.

II^[5]

A^[6]

The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" except "upon probable cause[.]" U.S. Const. amend. IV. There is probable cause for a search when "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." United States v. Hodge, 246 F.3d 301, 305 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted)). "A court is entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense." Id. at 305-06 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, the affidavit stated that (1) Jackson transported Jane Doe 1 to his apartment where he filmed them having sex and then said he was going to send the video to himself; (2) most child pornography collectors retain it indefinitely and safeguard it from discovery and damage; (3) such persons often maintain writings on the subject; and (4) to perform a complete search for illicit materials contained on computers or cellphones, agents typically must seize all electronic storage and input devices. Based on these attestations, to which the magistrate judge could "give considerable weight[,]" United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 296 (3d Cir. 2000), there was a substantial basis for the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of child pornography would be found in Jackson's home, particularly given that Jackson took the video there and wanted to ensure that it was sent to him, presumably for him to retain, before she deleted it.^[7]

B

Warrants must "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. The warrant presented to the Magistrate Judge described with particularity the place to be searched in Attachment A and the items to be seized in Attachment B. Those attachments, however, were not provided to Jackson. While the failure to do so was an error, suppression is not warranted.

The purpose of suppression, or exclusion, "is to deter future Fourth Amendment violations." Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 (2011) (citations omitted); Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009) (explaining that the exclusionary rule seeks "to deter [law enforcement's] deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence"). To obtain suppression, however there must be "but-for causality" between the violation and the seizure of the evidence. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 592 (2006). Thus, the exclusionary rule does not, for example, categorically apply when a warrant fails to particularize the things to be seized, see, e.g., United States v. Franz, 772 F.3d 134, 144-45 (3d Cir. 2014). Rather, in such instances we consider "(1) the extent to which the violation in th[e] case undermined the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and (2) what the Government gained from the violation." United States v. Wright, 777 F.3d 635, 640 (3d Cir. 2015). We consider these factors because the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement furthers two core...