The H onorab le W il li am T. Law rence ofthe Un it ed Stat es 1 Dis t ri c tCour tf or th e So uthe rnDis t ri c tofI ndi ana, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 3088 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D AVI D M. L ARS EN, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 04 CR 29

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Judg e.
A RGUED M AY 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 4, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE an d S YKES, C ircu it Ju dg es , a nd L AWR EN CE, D i s t r i ctJudg e . 1 S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Dav id L arsen brut all y beat T eri J en dus a- N i co l ai, hi s ex - wi fe, a t hi s ho m e inW i sc o ns i n. H e th en b o und h erwi thduc t ta pe, s tu ffed he ri n a2 N o. 08

- 3088 garbage can fi l l ed w i th sno w , put th e can in the backo f hi s t ruck, and drov e t o a s elf-stor age f aci l i ty i n I l l i noi s. H e left her th ere

— stil l bound and i n the snow-fi l l ed garbage can

— i n a n unhe at ed r en te d s to r age l o ck er . S he was di sc o ve r ed th e ne xtda y, abo uta n h o urfr o m de ath. Larse n w as charg ed w i th st ate and federa lcrim es; th e s t a t e c h ar ge s w er e re so lve d first

. Se eStat eof Wi s co nsin v . Larsen , 2007W IA pp 14 7, 30 2 W i s. 2d 718, 73 6 N
. W
. 2d 211. There afteri n federa l c ourt, Lars en waiv ed hi s r i g htt o a j ur y a nd a fte ra t r i alt o th e c ou rt w as c o nv i c t ed o ft wo c o un t s : k i dn a pp i ngi n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 201( a) ( 1) , and i nter sta te dom est i c vi ol ence i n violati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 2 261( a) ( 2) and ( b) ( 2) ( the In te rs tat e Dom est i c Vi ol ence A ct)
. The di str i ct j u dge se ntenced hi m to l i fe in pri son, wh i ch e x ceeded the re com m ended sente nci ng- gui del i nes r ange. L arsen ch al l en g es b o thhi s co nv i ct i o ns a nd hi s se ntence
. H i s fi rs t cl ai m o n appeali s a Com m erce Cl ause ch al l en g e to the Int er st at e Domes ti c Vi o l en ce Act; he conte nd s that the A ct unco nstituti onal l y federa l i zes pu re l y l oca lvi ol ent c ri m e with a n insuffi ci ent ne xus to i nter sta te com m er ce. H e next a rgues that hi s co nvi cti ons f orki dn apping and i nter sta te dom est i c vi ol en ce a r e mul t i pl i c i t o us in vi o l a t i o n o fthe Do ub l e J e o pa r dy Clause

. H e a l so m ai ntai ns thata w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch of hi s hom e o n the afternoon o fthe vi cti m ’ s di sappeara nce w as unj usti fi ed und ert h e em er gencydoctr i ne and ther ef o r e u nr e a s o nab l e i n v i o l a t i o n o fthe F o ur th Am e nd

m en t. F i na l l y, he c ha l l en g es h is l i fe se nt en ce t o the extent that the j ud ge’ s d ec isio n to i m pose i t was bas edN o. 08

- 3088 3 on J endu sa- N i col ai ’ s hav i ng suffer ed a m i scar ri age thr ee days a fterthe att ack. W e r ej ect these ar gu m en ts and affi rm . The Inter sta te Dom est i c Vio l ence A ct pun i shes thos e w ho use “ for ce, coe rci on, du re ss, or fra ud ” to cause a dom estic p ar tner to tr aveli n i nter sta te com m er ce a nd wh o com m i t a vi ol ent c ri m e a gain st t he vi cti m “in the cour se of, as a re su lt of, or t o fa c ilita te ” t h atint er st at e t ra ve l. 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 6 1 ( a ) ( 2 )
. T h i s s t a tu t e l i e s we l l wi th i n th e s c o pe o fCo ng r es s’ s po wert o r egul at e th e ch anne l s o ri ns trume n t a l i t i e s o f, o r p e r s o n s i n, in t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e . We furtherco ncl ud e that Lar sen’ s co nvi cti ons ar e no t m ult i pli ci tous; the cri m es ofki dn ap ping and i nter sta te dom est i c vi ol ence conta i n differ ent e l em ents, and eac h r equi r es pr o o fo fa f ac t th at the o th erdo es no t. The dist rict court’ s a dm i ssi on o fphysi calev i dence ob tained du r i ng the wa r r a nt l e s s s e a r c h o f La r s e n’ s ho m e was ult i m ate l y har m l ess, e ven ifi t was er ro r; the evi dence o fLa r s e n’ s g ui l twa s o v e r whe l mi nga nd u nc o nt r o v e r t e d. Fi nal l y, Lars en’ s l i fe s entence was not unreas onabl e, ei thero n i ts own te rm s or be cause the j ud ge’ s deci si on to im p ose it w as bas ed prim a r ily on J en d us a-N icol ai’s m i scar ri age .
I . B a c kg r o und On Januar y 3 1, 20 04, Davi d Larsen bru tal l y a tta cked T er i Jen d u s a - N ico lai, h is e x -w ife, w h en sh e c am e t o h is h om e in R ac in e C ou n ty , W isc on sin , to p ick u p th eir tw o young daughters

. The coupl e had di vor ced th ree yea rs ear l i er after an abusi ve m ar ri age , and Jendusa-4 N o. 08

- 3088 N i col aihad re centl y t aken L ar sen t o cour t fornonpaym e n t o f c h i l d s u p p o r t
. L a r s e n l u r e d h e r i n t o h i s h o me an d b eg ant o b eathe rwi tha b as eb al lb at, s tr an g l e, a nd sm oth er h er . W hen she did notsuccum b, he b ound her head, ankl es, and w ri sts with duct t ape and pl aced her i n a g arba g e ca n fi l l ed wi ths no w. He the n putthe garbage can, with J endu sa-N i col aii nsi de, i n the backo f h is p ick -u p tru c k a n d d ro ve to a se lf-st or ag e fa c ility in I ll inois w he re he h ad a rented s t orage locker. H e left h e rth e r e t o d i e , i n a c o l d s t o r a g e l o c k e r, i n th e s n o wfi l l ed garbage can w i th bo xes wedged aro und i t t o preve nt herfro m cl i m bi ng o ut. Du ring the dri ve to I l l i noi s, Jend usa- N i col aim anage d to f r e e h e r h a n d s a n d c a l l 9 1 1 fr o m h e r c e l l p h o n e . S he g av e Lar se n’ s ho m e addr ess, a nd l o ca ll aw e nf o r ce m en t an d r es cue pe r so nne lb r o k e int o L arsen’ s ho m e ar o und 11 a. m . i n an at tem pt to fi nd J endu sa- N i col ai
. They r em ai ned i nsi de f or about 15 m i nutes

—j ust l ong enough to as c ertain that she was notther e. J endu sa- N i col ai w as abl e t o m ake two m or e calls from hercel lphone: S he c al l ed h er husb an d a t no o n a nd c al l ed 91 1 a se co nd ti m e a ro und 2 p. m . A t o ne poi nt al ong th e ro ute t o I llin ois, she tried to exten d her ha nd outs ide th e garba g e ca n in a n e ff o r t to a tt r ac t th e at te nt i o n o fpa ss i ng m oto ri sts. L ar sen s aw thi s, hi t herag ai n, and confi scat ed her cel lphone. Fr om the se c ond and thi rd phone ca l l s, the pol i ce l earned that J endu sa- N i col aiwas bound and in the ba ck of Larse n’s tr uck. They al so l earned that JendusaN ico lai’s tw o d au gh te rs w er e m iss in g. A t a b ou t 3 :30 p .m .,N o. 08

- 3088 5 l aw - enf or cem ent o ffi cers an d a r escue tea m r eente re d Larse n’s hom e a fterthe Raci ne County Di str i ct A ttorne y con clud ed that exigen t circum stan ces e x is ted f or a w arran tless search

. Th e po li ce searc he d the h ou se th oro ughl y f o rs i x h o ur s l o o k i ngf or the two mi ss i ng chi l dren a s w el las cl ues about J endu sa- N i col ai ’ s whereabouts

. They went t h rough papers, pl aye d back voi cem ai lm ess age s, and sea rche d thro ugh Larse n’s co m pu ter fi l es. Du ring thi s sea rch, they obs er ved a l ar ge q uanti ty of blood in th e front ha ll, as w ell as an over t u r n e d c ha ir, a b l o o d- s t a i ne d b uc k e t, s we a t pa nt s wi th du c tt a pe ar ound the ankl es, and bl oo d-st ai ned gl ov es and sock s. I n the mean ti m e othe ro ffi ce r s pr epa r ed a se ar ch

war r an t appl i ca ti o n. Po l i ce a r r es te d La r se n a r o und 6 p. m . tha t ev en i ng w he n he r e po r t e d f o r wo r k

. He t o l d i nv e s t i g a t o rs that hi s daughter s were at h is gi rl fri end’s house but cl ai m ed he di d n o tkno w anyt hi ngab o utJ e nd us a - Ni c o l a i ’ s di s a pp e a r a n c e . P o l i c e r e c o v e r e d th e t wo g i r l s a tab o u t9 : 4 5 p . m. an d s us pen ded th e se ar cho fLa r se n’ s hom e wi th o ut any fur th eri nf o r m at i o n abo utJ en dus a- N i co l ai ’ s l o cati o n. T h e s e a r c h w a r r a n tw a s i s s u e d a tab o u t1 1 p . m. The next m or ni ng, the pol i ce s ear ched Larse n’s wall et an d fou n d tw o b u s in es s c ar d s fo r a s to ra ge fac ility in I l l i n o i s . P o l i c e c a l l e d th e s t o r a g e f a c i l i ty, a n d a n e mplo yee check ed Larse n’s uni t a nd hear d m oani ng insi de. Localpol i ce i m m edi ate l y r esponded and reco ver ed Jend us a-N icol ai from i ns ide th e garbage can . Do ctors l a t e rs a i d s he wa s ab o utan hour fr o m de a th: He rb o dy tem p eratu re had drop p ed to 84 de grees, r en al f ail ure6 N o. 08

- 3088 ha d b egun, a nd s he was frostbitten ab o uthe rb o dy. S he w a s ho s pi t a l i z e d a nd s uffe r e d a mi s c a r r i a g e t wo days l at erwhi l e st i ll a t th e ho spi ta l ; s he e st i m at ed th ats he had been pre gnant f orabo ut five w ee ks

. A l lherto es had to be a m p u tated du e t o fro stbi te, and herhear i ng was da mag e d b e c a us e o fthe b l o ws t o h e rh e a d. Larse n w as charg ed i n sta te c ou rt with a tte m pted fi rs td egree inten tional hom ici d e and tw o cou nt s of in terferen c e w ith ch ild cu st od y. See La rsen , 2007W IA pp 14 7, ¶ 1
. A federa lgr an d ju ry i nd i cted Lar sen o n two counts: kid n ap p in g, see 1 8 U .S.C . § 12 01 (a)( 1), an d forc ibly c a u s i n ga f o r me rs p o u s e t o t r a v e li n i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce whi l e co m m i tt ing a cr i m e o fv i o l en ce i n the c o u r s e o f an d to fac ilita te th e t ra ve l, see i d. § 2 26 1( a) ( 2), ( b) ( 2) ( the Inter sta te Dom est ic V i ol ence A ct)
. Lars en m o ve d t o s uppr es s th e evid en ce r ec o ve r ed i n the w arran tless search of his hom e, bu t the district cou rt den i ed th e m o ti o n. La r se n pl eaded no c o nt es t to the st at e c h ar ge s, see La rsen , 2 007 W IA pp 14 7, ¶ 1 3, and after sente nci ng he re turned t o federa lco urt an d o p ted f or a be nc h t r i al

. The c as e was t r i ed to the c o ur t, a nd a t th e c l o s e o fth e e v i d e n c e , L a r s e n mo v ed t o di s mi s s o n t wo con stitut ion al groun d s. H e argu ed first that th e I nt ersta te Dom est i c Vi ol ence A ct e xceeded C ongres s’ s l egi sl at i v e pow e ru nd e rthe Co mm e r c e Cl a us e , a nd s e c o nd , that the k i dn apping and i nter st ate dom est i c vi ol ence c h ar ge s w er e m u ltip licit iou s in vio lat ion of th e D ou b le J eo par dy Cl au se . The di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d thes e ar g um ents and convi cted hi m o n both counts. The s entencing guidel i nes s ugges ted a sente nce o f29 2 to 365 m ont hs , bu t the j ud ge sen ten ced La rsen to l ifeN o. 08

- 3088 7 im p risonm en t on th e kidn a p p in g ch arge an d a conc urr en t te r m o ft eny ea r s ( th e st atut o r y maxi m um ) o n the in te rs ta te d om es t i c -vio len c e c h ar ge . In im p os in g th is abov e- gui del i nes s entence , the j ud ge em phasi zed that Jen d u sa -N ico lai’s m isc ar ria ge j u std ay s a fte r th e a ss au lt w as a s eve re aggr avat i ng f acto r that the guidel i nes had no t ta k eni nt o c o ns i der at i o n.

I I . Discussi on A . Com m er ce Cl ause Chall enge t o t he I nter st at e D omest i c Viol ence A ct Larse n fi rs t ar gues that the Inter sta te Dom est i c Vi ol ence A ct is un con stitut iona l b e cau se it excee d s C ong ress’s leg isla tiv e po w er u n d er th e C om m er c e C lau se . Sp ec ifical l y, he c l ai m s th at the Act i m perm i ssibl y r egul ate s pu re l y l oca l, noneco nom i c c ond uct that doe s no t hav e a s ubstanti aleffect on inter sta te com m er ce. The r el evant port i on o fthe A ct pr ovi des as f ol l ows: A p er son w ho ca uses a s pouse, i nti m ate partner, o r d a t i n gp a r tn e rt o t r a v e li n i n t e r s t a t e o rf o r e i g n c o mm er ce . . . byf or ce, co er ci on, duress , o r fra ud , and w ho, i n the cour se of, as a r esul t o f, o r to f aci l i tat e s uch conduct ortr avel, co m m i ts orat tem pts to co m m i t a crim e of viol en ce agains t tha t sp ou se, intim ate p artn er, or d at in g p ar tn er , sh all b e p u n ish ed

. . . . 18 U. S
. C. § 2 26 1( a) ( 2)
. W e co nc l ude , i n l i ne wi thf o ur othe r ci rcui ts, thatthe I nter sta te Dom est i c Vi olen c e Act i s a pro per e x er ci se ofCongr ess ’ s Com m er ce Cl ause p ow er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. La nkford , 196 F.3d 563 ( 5th Cir.8 N o. 08

- 3088 19 99 ); U nited St at e s v. Page, 167 F.3d 325 ( 6th Cir. 1999); U ni t e d S t at es v. Gl uzman , 953 F. Sup p . 84 (S. D
. N
. Y
. 1997), aff’d, 15 4 F
. 3d 49 ( 2d Cir

. 19 98); U n i t e d S ta tes v. B a iley, 112 F.3d 758 (4th C ir. 1997). The Suprem e Cour t’ s “ m oder n Com m er ce Cl ause j uri sprudence has ‘ i denti fi ed thr ee bro ad cate gorie s o fa c t i v i ty th a tC o n g r e s s ma y r e g u l a t e u n d e ri t s c o mm er c e p ow er .’ ” U ni t e d St at e s v. M or r i s on , 529 U
. S. 59 8, 60 8 ( 2000 ) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Lo pez , 514 U
. S. 549, 55 8 ( 199 5 ) )
. T he Co ur th a s h e l d tha tthe Co mm e r c e Cl ause au th or ize s C on gr es s t o re gu lat e t h e “ u se o ft h e c h an n els of int erstate com m erce”; the “ins tru m en t a lities ofi nt ers t a t e c o mme r c e , o rp e r s o n s o rth i n g s i n i nt e r s t a t e c o mm er ce, ev en tho ugh the thre at m ay com e o nl y fro m i ntra
sta te acti vi ti es” ; and “tho se [ i ntra sta te] act i vi ti es that substa nti al l y a ffect in terst ate co m m er ce. ” Lo pez , 514 U
. S. at55 8-5 9; s e eal s o M or r i s on , 52 9 U .S. at 6 08 -09 ; Perez v. U n i t ed S ta tes , 4 0 2 U. S
. 1 4 6 , 1 5 0 ( 1 9 7 1 )
. Co ng r e s s ’ s l e g i s l ati ve author i ty i n the fi rs t a nd se cond c ate gor i es i s pl en ar y. C levela nd v. U nited Sta tes , 32 9 U
. S. 14, 19 ( 1946 ) ( “The pow ero fCongr es s overthe i nstr um ental i ti es of in te rs t a t e c o m m er c e is p len ar y . . . .”); C a m inetti v . U nited St at es , 24 2 U. S
. 4 70 , 4 91 ( 19 17 ) ( “[ T] he a utho r i tyo fCo ngr ess to ke ep the channel s o fi nter sta te com m er ce fre e fro m im m or al a n d inju riou s u se s h a s be en freq u en tly susta i ned, and i s no l onge r open to questi on. ”)
. Congr ess i o na lp o we ri n the thi r d c a t e g o r y, h o we v e r, e xt e nd s onl y t o e c on omi ca c t i vi ty t ha t sub stan tially affects i nt erst at e c om m er c e. M or r i s on , 52 9 U. S
. at 61 1 (“ Lo pez ’s re vi ew o fCom m er ce Cl ause case l aw dem onst ra tes that i n thos e ca ses wh er e we have su sta i ned fe deralr egul a-N o. 08

- 3088 9 ti on of i ntra sta te acti vi ty base d upon the acti vi ty’ s s u bst an tia l effe c ts on int er st at e c om m er c e, th e a c tiv ity in qu estion h as been som e sort of econ om ic end eavor.”). L arsen conc ep tu all y l ocat es his argu m e n t i n th e third C om m er ce Cl ause cate go ry . The A ct i s unconst i tuti ona l, he co ntends, bec ause Congre ss l acks the au th ori ty to pu ni sh dom est i c vi ol ence, wh i ch i s wholly intra sta te co nduc t, no ne co no m i c i n n atur e, a nd do es no t su bs ta nti al l y a ffect i nter sta te com m er ce. Thi s a rgum ent i s m i spla ced. The Inter sta te Dom est i c Vi ol ence A ct r egu lat es th e c h a n n e l s o ri n s t r u me n t a l i t i e s o fi n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce a nd per son s in i nter sta te com m er ce

— n otp u re ly i ntrast ate act i vi ty

— an d the r efo r e f al l s wi th i n Lo pez ’s fi rs t a n d seco nd cat ego ri es, i n w hi ch Congr ess has p len ar y a u th or ity to legis l a t e . T h e A c t p u n ish es on ly thos e who cause a s pouse o r i nti m ate partner to “tr avel inint er st at e o r for eig n co m m er c e” an d w h o c om m it a cr i m e o fvi ol ence “i n the cour se of, as a re su lt of, o r to f aci l i tat e” that i nter sta te tr avel

. I t i s the vi cti m ’ s m ove m ent in i nter sta te com m er ce

— n o t th e i n t r a s t a t e c r i me ofviolence

— th atim p lica te s t h e In te rs ta te D om es tic Vio l ence A ct. The Sup re m e C ourthas l ong hel d that m ove m ent o f perso ns a c ro ss sta te l i nes i s s uffi ci ent t o perm i t co ngre ssio n al re gu lat ion u n d er th e C om m er c e C lau se . Se eCam ps New fo un d/O w a to n na , Inc. v. To w n o f Ha rrison , M e. , 52 0 U
. S. 56 4, 57 3 ( 1997 ) ( re affi rm in g th at the m ove m ent o f p er so n s a c ro ss st at e lin es is a for m of co m m e r c e); Heart o f A t l a n t a M o tel, Inc. v. U nited Sta tes , 37 9 U.S
. 24 1, 25 6 ( 1964 ) ( hol ding th at the a ct o fcr oss i ng st ate l i nes ne ed10 N o. 08

- 3088

n otbe co m m er c ial in ch ar ac te r); C am ine tt i, 24 2 U.S
. at 491
. I n Cle ve l and t he S up re m e Cour t uphel d the M ann A ct aga i nst a chal l enge by pol yga m i sts wh o tran spor ted thei r wi v e s a c r o s s s t a t e l i ne s . 3 2 9 U. S
. 1 4
. T he defen dan ts ha d a r gue d tha t th e M ann Actunc o ns ti tu
tionally regu lated m arriage, a pu rely intrasta te m atter. The Court rej ecte d thi s a rgum ent: “T he power o f C o n g r e s s o v e rth e i n s t r u me n t a l i t i e s o fi n t e r s t a t e c o mm erce is plena ry; i t m ay be u sed to defea t w ha t are dee m ed to b e i m m o r alprac ti ce s; a nd the f ac t th atthe m ean s u se d m ay have ‘ the qual i ty ofpol i ce r egul ati ons’ i s n ot co nsequenti al

. ” Id. at 19 ( quoti ng Ho k e v. U nited Sta tes , 2 27U. S
. 3 08 , 3 23 ( 19 13 ) )
. And in C am in et ti th e Court up hel d the W hi te Sl ave A ct o f19 10, wh ich pro

h ib i t e d th e t r a n s p o r t a t i o no fw o me n i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce forpurposes o fdebaucher y o r pros ti tuti on. 24 2 U. S
. a t4 9 1
. T he Co ur th e l d: T h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o fp a s s e n g e r s i n i n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce, i t has l ong been set tl ed, i s w ith i n the re gul atory power ofCon gr ess , under the co m m er ce c l ause ofthe Consti tuti on, and the autho ri ty ofCongr ess to kee p the channe ls ofi nter sta te com m er ce fre e fro m i m m or aland i nj uri ous use s has b een fr equentl y s usta i ne d, a nd i s no l o ng ero pent o que st i o n. Id. Larse n re l i es heavi l y o n M or r i s on , but that piv ota l c as e h u rt s ra th er th an h e l p s h is a rg u m en t. M or r i s on i nval i dated, o n Com m er ce Cl ause g ro und s, a provi si on i n the V i o l e nc e Ag a i ns tWo menAc ttha t p r o v i de d a ci vi lr emedyt o v i ct i m s o fg en der

- r el at ed vi o l en ce . TheN o. 08

- 3088 11 Sup rem e C ou rt ana lyzed the p rov is io n u nd er Lo pez ’s th ir d c ategory

— as a r egul ati on o fwh ol l y intra sta te acti vi ty

— “[g ]ive n [its ] foc u s o n ge n d er - m oti vate d vi ol ence w here veri t o ccurs ( ra th er than vi ol ence dir ecte d a t the i nstr um ental i ti es of i nter sta te c om m er ce, i nter sta te m ar ket s, o r th i ngs o r perso ns i n i nter sta te com m er ce)
. . . . ” M or r i s on , 529 U
. S. a t 6 0 9 . T he Cou rt note d i n part icu l arthatthe sta tute l acke d any j uri sdi ct i o na l el ementtha t woul d “ l en d s uppo r t” t o the a r g um en t tha t the prov isi on w as su ffici en tly tied to interst at e c om m er c e. Id. at 613. T h er e is n ot h in g in M orrison th at li m its Con gress’s au th o r i tyt o r egulate the us e o fthe c ha nne l s o ri ns trum en ta litie s o f, or p er so n s in, in te r s t a t e c om m er c e. See, e . g. , Cl e ve l and, 32 9 U.S
. at16
. To t h e contr ar y, th e C ou rt spe ci fi ca l l y d ist i ng ui sh ed th e ci vi lr emedyi n the V iole n c e A ga in stW om en A c t, w h ich reg u lat ed w h olly in tr as ta te co n d u c t, fro m § 22 61 (a)( 1), th e c r i m i n alpenal ty pr o v i s i o n a t i s s ue he r e . Th e Co ur t t o o k no te of the “ i nter sta te tr avel ” e l em ent o fthe cri m i nalo ffense a nd the d i f f er e nc e tha tthe p r e s e nc e o fthi s e l e men tma de i n the C om m er ce Cl ause anal ysi s: “The Court s o f A pp eal s hav e uni f or m l y uphel d th[e ] cr i m i nalsa ncti on [ § 2 261( a) ( 1) ] as an a pp ro pri ate exerci se ofCongr ess ’ C om m er ce Cl ause author i ty, r eas oni ng tha t ‘ [ t] he pro visi o n pr o per l y f al l s wi th i n the fi r stof L o pez ’ s ca teg or i es a s i tr e g u l a t e s th e u s e o fc h a n n e l s o fi n t e r s t a t e c o mmer c e . ’ ” M or r i s on , 52 9 U.S
. at61 3 n. 5 ( quoti ng La nk fo rd, 19 6 F
. 3d at5 71

- 72 ) ( al te r at i o n in M or r i s on ). Thi s l an g ua ge, o fc o ur se , c anno t be t ak ena s ane xp li cit en d orsem en t o f th e con clusion that § 2261(a)(1) sur-12 N o. 08

- 3088 vi ve s Comm er ce Cl au se c hall en g e as a r egul at i o n o fthe channel s o r i nstru m ental i ti es of, o r perso ns i n, i nter sta te c om m er c e; M or r i s on a ddr e s s e d o nly the ci v i l

- r e med y p r o vi si o n in the Vi o l en ce Aga i ns t W o m enAct
. But the Court’ s l anguage underm i nes Lar sen’ s pos i ti on that § 22 61 ( a) ( 1) r egul at es pur ely i nt r as ta te a ct i vi tya nd m us t be an alyzed as suc h u nd er Lopez a nd M o r r i s on . A cc or d in gl y, we j oi n the Se cond, Fo urth, Fi fth, and Si xth Cir cui ts i n hol ding that the Inter sta te Dom est i c Vi olen ce Act i s a va l i d e xe r ci se ofCo ng r es s’ s po werunde rthe Comm er ce Cl au se to r egul at e th e ch anne l s o ri ns trum en ta litie s o f, or p er so n s in, in te rs ta te co m m er c e. See La nk fo rd, 196 F.3d at57 2; Page, 167 F. 3d at 33 5; Glu zm an , 953 F. S up p. 84; B a iley, 11 2 F
. 3d at 766.

B . Do ubl e J e o pa r dy La r s e n ne xta s s e r t s tha th i s c o nv i cti ons f o rb o th k i dna pp i ng and i nter sta te dom est i c vi ol ence ar e m ult i pli ci to us i n v i o l a t i o n o fthe Do ub l e J e o par dyCl a us e . Ki dn a pping, he a rgues, i s a l ess er - i ncl ud ed offense ofa vi ol ati on ofthe I nter sta te Dom est i c Vi ol ence A ct, and so t o pu ni sh h i m fo rb o th c r i me s i s t o p u n i s h h i m twi c e f o rth e s a me offe n se . SeeIll inois v. Vitale, 447 U
. S. 410, 415 (1980 ). The Fi fth A m endm ent’ s Doubl e Je op ar dy Cla use pro v i d e s th a tn o p e r s o n s h a l l“ b e s u bj e c tf o rth e s a me offen se to b e tw ice pu t in j eop ard y of li fe or li m b.” U

. S. C O NST . am en d . V; Witte v. U nited Sta tes , 515 U
. S. 38 9, 39 5- 96 (1995). T he dou ble-j eop ard y princ iple i m p li cate d here i s that a co urt m ay not i m pose cu m u lat i ve pu ni shm entsN o. 08

- 3088 13 for th e s am e a c t u n les s t h e le g i s l at u re int en d s it
. See M issou ri v. H un ter, 45 9 U
. S. 35 9, 36 6 ( 1983 ) ( “W i th r espect to c um ul at i ve s enten ce s i m po se d i n a s i ng l e tr i al, the Dou bl e J eo par dy Cl au se . . . pr ev en t[ s] th e s en te nc i ng c o u r tfr o m p r e s c r ib i n gg r e a t e rp u n i s h me n tth a n the legi slatur e inten d ed

. ”); see a lso U nited Sta tes v. P eel, 595 F. 3d 763, 76 5- 66 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. A ccor dingly, a perso n m ay not be c onvi cted and punished fortwo se parat e offenses ar i si ng o ut o fthe sam e a ct unl ess “e ach [ offense] re q u ire s p ro of of a f a c t w h ich th e o th er d oe s n ot .” B lo ck b urg er v. U nited Sta tes , 2 84 U. S
. 2 99 , 3 04 ( 19 32 )
. The fam il iar B lo ck burg er test focu ses on the sta tu tory el em ents ofthe separ ate o ffenses . To o bt ain a k i dna ppi ngc o nv i ct i o n, the g o ve r nm en t mu s tp r o v e th a tt he de fe n d a n t( 1 ) s e i z e d th e v i c t i m; ( 2) hel d the vic tim “forr ansom o r re w ar d oro ther w i se” ; and ( 3) tr anspor ted the vi cti m i n i nter sta te co m m er ce. 18 U .S.C . § 12 01 (a)- (a)( 1); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa nd o val, 34 7 F.3 d 62 7, 63 3 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ). Th e I n t e rs ta te D om es tic V iol en ce Act, o n the o th erha nd, r equi r es tha t ( 1) the defe nd ant i s a spouse, i nti m ate partner, o r dati ng par tner ofthe vi cti m ; ( 2) the defe nd ant ca used the vi cti m to tr aveli n i nter sta te com m er ce b y force , c oer ci on, duress , orfra ud ; and ( 3) the defe nd ant co m m itt ed a c ri m e o f viol en ce again st th e v ic tim i n th e cou rse of, as a result of, or to f acili tate th e interstat e travel. 18 U
. S. C
. § 2261(a)(2)
. L ar se n ac kn ow led ge s t h atth e In te rs ta te D om es tic Vi o l en ce Act r equi r es pr o o f o f f ac ts th at th e kidn appi ng sta tute does not: The d efe n d an t a nd the vi cti m m ust be spo us es , i nt i m at e par tn er s, o rda ting par tn er s, a nd the14 N o. 08

- 3088

“W ho ev er u nla w fully seizes, confine s, inv ei g l e s, d eco y s, 2 k idnaps , abduc t s , or c ar ri es away and h ol ds f or r ans om or r e w a r d or o the rw ise an y p erso n . . . w he n th e p erso n is w ill fu lly tr a n sp o rt ed in in te rs ta te o r for ei g n co m m er ce . . . s hal l be puni s he d by i m pri s onm en tf or an y te rm ofye ar s or f or life

. . . . ” 18 U .S.C . § 1 2 0 1 (a ). defen dan t m us t co m m i t a crim e o fv i o l en ce a g ains t th e vi cti m . H e co ntends, however, thatthe conve rse is not tr ue; he m ai ntains that ki dn apping has no el em ent no t al so re quir ed by the Inter sta te Do m es tic Vio l ence A ct. S t a t e d d i ffe r e n t l y, L a r s e n ’ s a r g u me n t i s th a t th e c r i me o fi n t e r s t a t e d o me s t i c v i o l e n c e en c o mp a s s e s th e c r i me ofki dn apping. W e di sa g r ee . The k i dnap p ing st atut e r equi r es tha t th e defe nd ant “h old [ ] [ the v i cti m ] f orr ansom o r re w ar d or othe rwis e. ” Thi s “ hol ding” r eq u i re m ent i s a n ess enti al 2 ele m en t o f kid n ap p in g a n d m u stbe es ta b l i s h ed in ev er y c as e. See 3 W AYNE R. L A F AVE, S UB S T ANT I VE C RI MINAL L AW § 1 8.2 (2d ed . 200 9); Sa ndoval, 34 7 F
. 3d at 633. Fur ther m or e, the Suprem e Cour t has said tha t the “ ho l di ng ” r e qu i r e men t “ ne c e s s a r i l y i mpl i es an u n law fu l p h ys ica l or m en ta l res tr ain t fo r an ap p re c iab le peri od. ” C ha tw in v . U nited Sta tes , 326 U
. S. 455, 460 (1946 ). The I nter sta te Dom est i c Vi olen c e Act, o n the othe r hand , does notr equi re thatthe defe nd ant h old the vi cti m . Rather, the defe nd ant m ust ca u se the v i cti m to tr av eli n int er state c o m m er ce “ byf o r ce , c o er ci o n, du re ss, or fra ud , ” a nd co m m i t a cr i m e o fvi ol ence aga i nst th e victi m “in the cour se of, as a re sul t o f, o r to fac ilita te ” t h e in te rs ta te tra ve l.N o. 08

- 3088 15 Thu s, i fa defe nd ant ( f orexam ple ) i nd uces hi s s pouse to tr avelacr oss s ta te l i nes b y c oer ci on o r f al se prete nses and then co m m i ts a cr i m e o fvi ol ence aga i nst he r w hen sh e a rriv es , he w ou ld be gu ilty ofi n t e r st at e d om es tic viol ence but notki dn apping because the “hol ding” el em ent o fki dn apping w oul d b e m i ssing. Ind eed, thr ee ci r cui ts ha ve he l d th at th e el ement o f ho l d ing di st i ngui shes ki dn apping fro m a vio l ati on o fthe I nter sta te Dom est i c Vi ol ence A c t fordoubl e-j eopar dy purposes

. See La nk fo rd, 196 F.3d at57 8; U nited Sta tes v. Sick ing er, 17 9 F .3d 10 91 , 109 3 (8 th C ir. 19 99 ); B a iley , 1 12 F. 3d at 76 7. W e se e no r ea so n t o di sa g r ee wi ththi s co nc l us i o n. L arsen su g g es ts tha t ev eni fthe t wo c r i m es r equire proof ofdi ffer en t el ement s in the o r y, i n thi s ca se the sam e f acts pro ved bo th the i nter sta te tr avelel em ent o f i nter sta te dom est i c vi ol ence and the “ho l ding” el em ent o f k i d na p pi ng . Tha t i s, La r se n a r g ue s th atthe g o ve r nm ent c oul d not pro ve a vi ol ati on o fthe I nter sta te Domes ti c Vi o l en ce Acti n thi s ca se wi th o ut a l so pr o ving th atthe de fen dan t “h eld” the v i ct i m f o rpur po se s o fthe kidn ap p ing statu te. L arsen ’s argum en t essen tially rei terates the S upr eme Co ur t’ s ho l di ngi n G rady v. C orbi n , 49 5 U .S. 50 8 (1 99 0), w h ich w as o ve rru led as “w ro n g in p rin c iple [ and] .

. . unstabl e in appli cati on” by U nited S t at e s v. D ixon , 50 9 U.S
. 68 8, 70 9 ( 1993 )
. In m ult i pli ci ty chal l enges the elem ents o fe a c h o ffe nse

— n ot the speci fi c o ffense conduct

— d e t e r mi n e w h e th e rtwo o ffe n s e s a r e th e s a me for p u rp os es of d ou b le jeop ar d y. See R utledge v . U nited Sta tes , 51 7 U.S
. 29 2, 298 (1 99 6) ( “The B lo ck burg er tes t re quir es us to co nsi der whether

. . . the § 8 46 conspi ra cy offense r equi re s pro ofo fany el em ent th ati s no t a par t16 N o. 08

- 3088 ofthe CC E offense. ” ( em p hasi s a dd ed))

. W e r ei ter ate d th i s po i nti n U nite d States v. Hatchet t : D ixon i n f o r ms u s th a ti nd e c i d i ngwh e th e rt wo o ffen se s a re the s ame o rno t, o uri nqui r y mustf o cus on the el em ents of each of the charg ed offe nses ra th er th an th e un d er lyin g c o n d u c t. D ixon re - est abl i shed the “sa m e e l em ents” te st ar ti cul ate d by B lo c k b u rg e r as the o ne and onl y t estthatco urts ar e t o ap p ly in c o n sid er in g w h et h er a d efe n d an t m ay be

. . . puni sh ed twi ce b as ed o n a s i ng l e ac t o rt r an sa ct i o n. 245 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2001). Ac c o r d i n g l y, i t ma k e s n o d i ffe r e n c e th a t th e s a me evi dence es tabl i shed that Larse n f or cibl y c aused J endu saN i col aito tr aveli n i nter sta te com m er ce a nd al so that he “ he l d” he ras req uir ed f o rc o nv i ct i o n o fk i dna ppi ng . Eac h o fthe se o ffen se s r equi r es pr o o fo fa n e l ement th atth e o th er d oe s n ot, an d th atd efe at s L ar se n ’s m u ltip licit y a rg u m en t. H is c on vic tio n s d o n otvio lat e d ou b le j eopar dy.

C. The W arr antl ess Sear ch L a r s e n a r g u e s th a tthe war r a n t l e s s s e a r c h o fh i s h o me on the aftern oo n ofJ endu sa- N i col ai ’ s di sappeara nce w as u njustifi ed by the em ergen cy d octrine an d therefore vi o l at ed th e Fou rth Am en dm en t. Dur i ngthi s si x- ho ur sea rch, the pol i ce di sco ver ed a l ar ge quantity of bl oo d on the ca rp et , an ove rturned chai r, and bl oo dy i tem s o f cl othing. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed La rs en’ s m oti on t o supp re ss thi s e vi dence, r el ying o n the exi gencie s ofanN o. 08

- 3088 17

W e not e, ho wever, the s i m i l ar i t i es b etw een thi s c as e and 3 o u r de c i s i on i n U n ited S tates v . B ell, 500 F. 3d 609, 613 ( 7th Cir

. 20 07 ). W e also n ote tha t the W iscon sin C ou rt of A p p e als ha s uph e l d thi s s e a r c h a s r e a s on a bl e un de r the F ou r th Am e nd

m e n t be cau se the ex ige nt circu m stan ces “d id no t d issipa te u n til J e n d u sa -N ic o la i a n d h er tw o ch ild re n w er e l o ca te d .” L arsen , 2007 W I App 147, ¶ 30. on go in g m iss in g-p er so n s in ve st iga tio n . See, e.g., U nited States v . B el l , 500 F. 3d 609, 61 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Lars en ma i nt a i n s th a tth e e me r g e n c y ( o r“ e x i g e n tc i r c u msta nces”) doctr i ne does not apply because the pol i ce knew bef or e they r eente re d t h e hom e that nei therJ endu saN i col ainorherchi l dren were ther e a nd theyhad ple nty o fti m e t o geta w ar ran t between the fi rs t s ear ch a t1 1 : 3 0 a . m. a n d th e s e c o n d a t3 : 3 0 p . m. W e n e e d n o tde ci de the me r i t s o fthe F o ur th Am e nd

m en t q u es tio n be c au s e a n y e rro r inad m itt in g th e e vidence w as harm l ess . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Pave l s ki, 78 9 3 F. 2d 485, 49 0 ( 7th C i r. 19 86) ( the a dm i ssi on o fta i nted ev id en c e is h ar m les s if it is c lea r b ey on d a re as on ab le doubt thatthe ver dictwould st an d w ith out i t)
. The cas e aga i nst Lar sen was i ro ncl ad. T h e gover nm ent pr ese nted J endu sa- N i col ai ’ s g ra phic tes ti m ony abo u t how Lars en at ta ck ed and ki dna pped he r ; pl ay ed th e ta pe fr o m the two 9 1 1 c a l l s fr o m J e n d u s a - Ni c o l a ii n wh i c h s he g av e L ar se n’ s addr es s an d t o l d po l i ce s he was b o und i n the back of hi s tr uck; and intro du ced th e ph ysi cal evi denc e fro m Lars en’ s s tor age l ock erwh er e J endu saN i co l aiwas f o und. Inde ed, La r se n’ s wri tt enc l o sing ar gum ent a dm i tte d the f acts thathad be en adduced18 N o. 08

- 3088 dur i ngthe b en cht r i ala nd ins tead pre ss ed th e two c o nstituti onalar gum ents he has re i ter ate d here

. U nd er these ci rcum st an ces, the evi dence ofthe bl oo d-st ai ned c ar p etan d clo th in g w as en tir ely cu m u la t i ve . Th e e vide nc e o fLa r s e n’ s g ui l twa s ab un da nta nd c o nc ede d, and Larse n ’s theor y o fthe case was ess enti al l y c onfined to the Com m er ce Cl ause and m ult i pli ci ty chal l enges . A ny er ro r i n adm i tting the physi calev i dence ob tained i n the w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch ofLars en’ s ho m e was har m l ess .
D . La r sen’s Li f e Sente nce Fi nal l y, Lars en co ntends that hi s sente nce i s bo th pro cedu ra lly and substanti vel y unre aso nabl e. The di str i ct j udg e sent en ce d La r se n t o l i fe i m pr i so nm en t o n the ki dn apping charg e

— tw o l eve l s hi gherthan th e top o f hi s s ug g e s t e d gui de l i ne s r a nge

— i n l ar ge part because J endu sa- N i col aisuffer ed a m i scar ri age thr ee d ays after Larse n ass aul ted and abducted her

. Larse n ar gu es fi rs t th atthe e vi den ce was i ns uffi ci en t f o rthe jud ge to fi nd either th at Jend us a-N icolai w as p regn an t or that L arsen ’s c on d u c t ca used the m i scar ri age . H e a l so m ai ntai ns that the l i fe s entence i s s ubstanti vel y unre aso nabl e. W e review sent en ces for proce d ura l error to ensu re that th e sentenci ng j ud ge did not“s el ect[ ] a sente nce base d on cl ear l y e rr oneo us f acts
. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 5 4 7F
. 3 d 7 8 6 , 7 9 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. He r e , La r s e n wai ved any f actual ch al l enge to the e vi dence thatJ endu saN icol ai suffered a m iscarriage. A t sen ten cing L arsen ’s cou ns e l ex p li citly ackn ow ledge d that a com p lete un d erst an ding ofthe conse quences o fLars en’ s cr i m esN o. 08

- 3088 19 i ncl ud ed J endu sa- N i col ai’s m i scar ri age : “I t’ s about a p hy sical, brut al assau lt, and an effort to kil l som eon e. I t’s ab ou t t h e d ea t h o fa five w ee k old fet u s. N otth er e in th e s to ra ge loc ke r . . . b u t d a y s lat er in t h e h os p ita l, as the pres ent encereportcor re ctly reports
. A m isc ar ri age o n We d n e s d a y, f o l l o win gth e a s s a u l to nS a tu r d a y . ” ( E mp ha sis add ed .) A side from the w aiver, how ever, bo thJ en dus a- N i co l aia nd her hu sba nd t es ti fi ed to the pr e g na nc y a nd h e rmi s c a r r i a g e , a nd the di s t r i c tj ud ge w as en tit led to c r ed it th eir te st im on y. Fin ally , i t w as not cl ear l y e rr oneo us f orthe j ud ge to co ncl ud e that th e m isc ar ria ge w as at tr ibu ta b le t o L ar se n ’s c on d u c t. It w as reason able for th e j ud ge to i nfe r t h a t th e severe beat i ng and hours of exposure to the col d caused J endu saN icola i t o m iscarry

— parti cul ar l y in l i ght o fthe f act that her doctor s e sti m ated that J endu sa- N i col aiwas j ust a n h o u r f rom de ath w he n resc ue rs found her in L arsen ’s self- storage locker. W e als o concl ud e that the abo ve- gui del i nes s entence o fl if e in pr i so n was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n. The s en tence i s s ubstanti vel y r eas onabl e given the c ol d-bl oo ded br ut al i tyo fLa r se n’ s cr i m es an d the e xt r eme pa i n a nd an gu i sh he i nfl i cted

— o n J e n d u s a - Ni c o l a ip r i ma r i l y, a nd on h er fam ily as se c on d ar y v ic tim s. It w as en tir ely fair for th e jud ge to co n sid er th e m isc ar ria ge a s a sig n ifica nta g gravat o r . The j udg e to o kno te o fthe mit i g at i ng f acto rs the defe nse pr esen ted atse ntenci ng: Lars en had n o p rior cr im in al h ist or y, a s te ad y job, an d w as a c t ive in h is c h u rc h . Th att h e ju d ge ga ve th is m itig at ion little wei g ht i s ha r dl y su r pr i sing i n l i g ht o f th e obvi o us20 N o. 08

- 3088

seve ri ty ofthes e cr i m es and i n any eve nt i s no t foru s t o seco nd

- guess . A FFI RMED .

8- 4- 10