Opinion ID: 177273
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Handling of Lochmiller Under the CI

Text: Guidelines Christie next argues, as he did to the District Court, that, by failing to abide by the CI Guidelines, “[t]he government’s investigation and prosecution of [the case against him] constituted outrageous government conduct” that violated his due process rights. (Appellant’s Op. Br. at 45.) He claims there were several violations of the Guidelines, including (1) that MacFarlane knew that Lochmiller was on probation but did not 26 contact probation authorities; (2) that the paperwork required to register a confidential informant had not been completed; and (3) that, although confidential informants are not supposed to engage in criminal activity without authorization and supervision, Lochmiller continued to run the NAMGLA website. See CI GUIDELINES §§ II.A-B, II.D.5, III.C. According to Christie, the government’s failure to follow the CI Guidelines meant that MacFarlane and other agents lacked control over Lochmiller, which Christie alleges violated his right to due process because, absent such control, the government “simply cannot vouch for the integrity of the data on [the NAMGLA] site,” and thus innocent people are exposed to prosecution. (Appellant’s Op. Br. at 54.) In assessing Christie’s claim of outrageous government conduct, we review the District Court’s factual findings for clear error and exercise plenary review over the Court’s legal conclusions. United States v. Lakhani, 480 F.3d 171, 181 (3d Cir. 2007). “[W]e repeatedly have noted that we are ‘extremely hesitant to find law enforcement conduct so offensive that it violates the Due Process Clause.’” United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137, 154 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1065 (3d Cir. 1996)). The CI Guidelines do not themselves create rights for criminal defendants. See United States v. Henry, 482 F.3d 27, 33 (1st Cir. 2007) (“Justice Department guidelines were not compelled by statute, nor intended to create private rights.”); cf. United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 751-52 (1979) (reversing suppression of evidence obtained in violation of IRS regulations). Accordingly, even if those Guidelines were 27 violated, that would not mean, in itself, that Christie would be entitled to relief. The pertinent question is whether the government’s conduct was so outrageous or shocking that it amounted to a due process violation. See Hoffecker, 530 F.3d at 153-54; United States v. Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d 221, 229 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A] criminal defendant may raise a due process challenge to an indictment against her based on a claim that the government employed outrageous law enforcement investigative techniques.”). The CI Guidelines are relevant, if at all, only to the extent that they indicate boundaries the FBI views as defining good law enforcement practices in working with CIs. They do not purport to be rules, much less a statement of the limits of constitutional behavior. Assuming that the CI Guidelines apply to the government’s interactions with Lochmiller, which is a point in dispute, the alleged failures to abide by the Guidelines did not violate Christie’s due process rights. Cases in which we have found due process violations have involved far more egregious government conduct. For example, we have determined that due process was violated when the government itself manufactured the illegal activity and then prosecuted others who engaged in that activity alongside government actors. See United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373, 379 (3d Cir. 1978) (“We do not believe the Government may involve itself so directly and continuously over such a long period of time in the creation and maintenance of criminal operations, and yet prosecute its collaborators.”). Here, in contrast, the government gained access to ongoing illegal activity through an intermediary, Lochmiller. The government benefitted from the information and site access that Lochmiller provided, but it did nothing to create or encourage 28 criminal acts, and there is no evidence that the information Lochmiller gave was untrustworthy.