Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-12-03397/USCOURTS-ca8-12-03397-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy C. Stringer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3397

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Timothy C. Stringer,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

____________

 Submitted: September 27, 2013

 Filed: January 6, 2014

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Timothy Stringer entered a conditional guilty plea to producing child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The district court sentenced

Stringer to 360 months’ imprisonment. Stringer appeals an order of the district court

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation ofthe Honorable James

C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
denying his motion to suppress evidence. He also appeals a pretrial ruling of the

district court excluding evidence that one of the minors involved in Stringer’s 2

production of child pornography was emancipated at the time the photographs were

taken. We affirm.

I.

On June 14, 2010, Trooper T.W. Hilburn of the Missouri State Highway Patrol

was on duty in Cassville, Missouri. Hilburn observed a car leaving a residence

known for drug activity. Hilburn stopped the vehicle because it was missing license

plates and did not have working taillights. 

When Hilburn approached the car, he observed Stringer, then thirty-three years

old, in the driver’s seat. There were two young, female passengers: G.R., then

fifteen, in the front seat and A.K., then seventeen, in the back. Stringer said he had

just purchased the car but had not yet licensed it. Hilburn obtained paperwork from

Stringer, returned to his patrol car to run a computer check, and walked back to

Stringer’s vehicle. At that point, he noticed “pretty quickly” that G.R.’s eyes were

“very dilated.” Hilburn suspected that both female passengers were under the

influence of illegal drugs, so he called the chief of police in Cassville and requested

that she bring a drug dog to the scene. 

Having verified that the vehicle had a valid Arkansas title, Hilburn returned

Stringer’s paperwork and told him that he was free to leave, but that he could not

drive away the vehicle without license plates and functioning taillights. Hilburn

requested permission to search Stringer’s vehicle; Stringer refused. Stringer then

inquired whether he could leave if he fixed the taillights. Hilburn replied that

The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western 2

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
Stringer could attempt to fix the lights but that because the drug dog was en route, the

vehicle could not leave. 

When Stringer got out of the car, Hilburn observed a knife in Stringer’s pocket

and asked him to remove it for safety reasons. Stringer emptied his pockets, and one

object then displayed was a case for contact lenses. Hilburn asked permission to

examine the case, and Stringer consented. Upon opening the case, Hilburn noticed

a white crystalline substance around the edges of the lid and saw a white “blob” in the

center of each compartment. Hilburn suspected the substance was methamphetamine

and asked the dispatcher to send an officer with a field test kit.

Ten minutes later, an officer arrived with a drug test kit. The contact lens case

tested positive for methamphetamine. Hilburn then placed Stringer under arrest and

placed him in his patrol car. The local police chief then arrived with a drug dog. The

canine alerted to the driver’s seat and the dash panel area. 

Hilburn then searched Stringer’s vehicle. In the car, Hilburn located an open

purse that contained a forged Missouri driver’s license in the name of G.R. and a

glass pipe that Hilburn thought was consistent with drug use. He also found a

Samsung phone inside the purse. Looking for drug information, he searched through

the text messages and contacts list. During this review, Hilburn discovered

photographs of a male and female engaged in sexual intercourse. G.R. confirmed that

the male was Stringer and that she was the female. Hilburn returned to his patrol car

and informed Stringer that he was now under arrest for statutory rape. 

Hilburn continued the search of Stringer’s vehicle. He found a digital camera

and searched the images on the camera. Several images depicted G.R. and Stringer

engaged in intercourse, and many more showed G.R. nude or in a state of undress. 

The camera also contained pictures of A.K. undressed and nude. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
Hilburn also located a Motorola cell phone, which G.R. identified as Stringer’s. 

Hilburn searched that phone and discovered images similar to those found on G.R.’s

phone, including images of Stringer and G.R. engaged in sexual intercourse. During

subsequent interviews, G.R. confirmed that she had engaged in sexual intercourse

with Stringer, and that Stringer used a cell phone and camera to take photographs of

her engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

A grand jury charged Stringer with committing five criminal offenses. Count

One, to which Stringer eventually pleaded guilty, alleged production of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The charge alleged that he used a

minor, G.R., to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a

visual depiction of such conduct, using (1) a Samsung cell phone (G.R.’s phone), (2)

a Motorola cell phone (Stringer’s phone), and (3) an Olympus camera (the camera

found in the car). 

Stringer moved to suppress all of the evidence seized as a result of the traffic

stop. After an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge recommended denial of the

motion, and the district court adopted the recommendation. The court concluded that

Hilburn did not unreasonably prolong the investigative stop, because Hilburn had

reasonable suspicion to believe that Stringer was involved in illegal drug activity. 

The court further concluded that there was probable cause to justify the search of the

vehicle, cell phones, and camera, and that a warrant was not required. Prior to trial,

the district court also ruled that Stringer could not present evidence of G.R.’s

previous marriage at age fourteen and her “emancipation,” because emancipation of

the minor is not a legal defense to a charge of producing child pornography and the

proffered evidence was likely to confuse the jury. 

Stringer then entered a conditional guilty plea to production of child

pornography as charged in Count One of the indictment, reserving the right to appeal

the denial of his motion to suppress and the district court’s ruling excluding evidence

-4-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
of G.R.’s emancipation. The plea agreement providesthat if Stringer “prevails on this

appeal, and the evidence is suppressed, he will be allowed to withdraw his guilty

plea.”

II.

A.

On the motion to suppress, Stringer concedes that the trooper had probable

cause to stop his vehicle for traffic violations. Stringer argues, however, that Hilburn

violated the Fourth Amendment’s proscription against unreasonable searches and

seizures by continuing to detain Stringer after Hilburn confirmed that Stringer had a

valid driver’s license and that the car was validly registered in Arkansas. A traffic

stop can become unlawful “if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required”

to complete the mission of the initial seizure. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407

(2005). Continued detention is constitutional, however, if an officer has reasonable

suspicion that other criminal activity is afoot. United States v. Gallardo, 495 F.3d

982, 987 (8th Cir. 2007). We consider the totality of the circumstances to determine,

“based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior,” Illinois

v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000), whether the trooper had “at least a minimal

level of objective justification” for prolonging the seizure. Id. at 123–24.

The mission of the initial seizure was fulfilled when Hilburn returned to

Stringer’s car with Stringer’s paperwork. Hilburn told Stringer that he personally was

free to leave, but Stringer contends that the continued detention of his vehicle

constituted a continued seizure of his person as well. Assuming for the sake of

analysis that Stringer was seized after the completion of the routine traffic stop, we

agree with the district court that Hilburn had reasonable suspicion that Stringer was

involved in narcotics offenses. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
Hilburn had observed Stringer’s vehicle leaving a house known for drug

transactions. He testified that the residence had been searched several times by the

local drug task force, and that he personally had stopped several people leaving the

house in possession of methamphetamine and other illegal substances. During the

traffic stop, Hilburn also saw that G.R. had “very dilated” pupils. Based on his

training as a certified drug recognition expert, Hilburn concluded that the juveniles

appeared possibly to be under the influence of narcotics. When Stringer emptied his

pockets after exiting his vehicle to repair the taillights, Hilburn observed the contact

lens case containing the crystalline substance and the gelatinous blob that he

suspected was methamphetamine. This information provided objective indicia of

possible criminal activity that justified further investigation. See generally United

States v. Shafer, 608 F.3d 1056, 1063 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Long, 320 F.3d

795, 800 (8th Cir. 2003). 

For these reasons, the duration of the seizure was constitutionally reasonable,

and the district court correctly refused to suppress evidence based on the length of the

encounter. The officers had sufficient grounds to detain Stringer until the point at

which they developed probable cause for an arrest.

B.

Based on the positive field test of the contact lens case for methamphetamine

and the drug dog’s alert to Stringer’s car, the officers had probable cause to search the

car. See United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 919 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc). 

They were permitted to search the vehicle and any closed containers therein without

a warrant, based on the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant

requirement. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820–21 (1982). Stringer contends,

however, that the officersimpermissibly searched the contents of the cell phones and

digital camera without a warrant. In his view, modern cell phones and digital cameras

-6-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
are more like computers than traditional containers, and officers must obtain a

warrant to search the electronic contents of these devices.

Stringer’s argument fails before we reach the merits. He lacks standing to

challenge the search of the Samsung cell phone belonging to G.R., and the evidence

seized from the Samsung phone is sufficient to sustain Stringer’s conviction. The

Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches of “their”

effects, and an accused in a criminal case may not assert the Fourth Amendment

rights of a third party. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104–06 (1980); Rakas v.

Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133–38 (1978). To mount a successful motion to suppress, an

accused must first establish that he personally has a legitimate expectation of privacy

in the object that was searched. Stringer makes no argument that he has a reasonable

expectation of privacy in the contents of G.R.’s cell phone, so he may not challenge

the seizure of evidence from that device.

The charge to which Stringer pleaded guilty alleged that he produced child

pornography using three different devices: (1) the Samsung cell phone (G.R.’s

phone), (2) the Motorola cell phone (Stringer’s phone), and (3) the Olympus camera. 

His motion to suppress sought to exclude all evidence obtained from the three

devices. According to his plea agreement, Stringer is permitted to withdraw his guilty

plea only if he “prevails on this appeal, and the evidence is suppressed.” Because

Stringer cannot challenge the search of the Samsung cell phone and the seizure of

evidence from that device, he cannot achieve exclusion of the evidence described in

his motion to suppress. It istherefore unnecessary to address whether the warrantless

searches of Stringer’s cell phone and the digital camera were constitutional. The

evidence obtained from G.R.’s cell phone is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

-7-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044 
III.

Stringer also challengesthe district court’s exclusion of evidence that G.R. was

an emancipated person at the time the offenses were committed. The statute under

which Stringer was convicted, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), prohibits using “any minor” with

the intent that “such minor” engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of

producing any visual depiction of such conduct. Stringer argues that because G.R.

waslegally emancipated from her parents prior to engaging in the conduct at issue in

the indictment, she was not a “minor” in the eyes of the law, and it was legally

impossible for Stringer to violate § 2251(a) through his interactions with her.

We agree with the district court that G.R.’s previous marriage and

emancipation are not legal defenses to a charge against Stringer under § 2251(a). The

term “minor” is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2256(1) as “any person under the age of

eighteen years.” Section 2256(1) provides no exception for emancipated persons. 

G.R. was a “minor” within the meaning of the statute, regardless of her emancipated

status, and the district court acted within its discretion in concluding that evidence of

emancipation would “confuse the jury and lend itself to perhaps a jury nullification

issue.” R. Doc. 113, at 19. There was no reversible error in the pretrial evidentiary

ruling. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. 

* * *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-8-

Appellate Case: 12-3397 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/06/2014 Entry ID: 4111044