Opinion ID: 170424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Governmental Outrageous Conduct

Text: Perrine moved to dismiss this case on the ground that the government had engaged in outrageous conduct. The district court denied the motion. We review that denial de novo. United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir.1994). Perrine's claim of outrageous governmental conduct is based upon the following: as indicated above, when Perrine committed the instant offense, he was on probation for a prior offense involving child pornography on his computer. His computer had been confiscated in connection with that prior offense. Before the police returned his computer to him, they thought the computer had been cleaned so that all pornography was removed. Wichita Police Detective Shawn Bostick testified that he had turned the computer over to the forensics unit to have it cleaned. Prior to releasing the computer to Perrine's attorney in the prior case, Bostick did not check to see that the forensics unit had in fact cleaned the computer. Perrine claims that the computer was returned to him with the child pornography from the prior case still on it, which he claims is tantamount to sticking a needle with heroin into the arm of an addict. When explaining what happened to Perrine's computer, Bostick testified that, during the investigation of the prior case, Perrine had mentioned that he kept a hidden back-up copy of each of his files. Bostick further opined that, if the hidden back-up copy was missed during the search of the computer, the files could have been moved back to the computer after the computer was returned to Perrine, and it would appear that the files had been on the computer the entire time. Bostick thus testified, As I stated, is it possible I returned child pornography to [Perrine] mistakenly? It is possible. Is it possible the stuff wasn't there? It's possible. Appellee's Supp.App. at 49. The district court found returning these images to defendant was probably negligent, even incompetent; however, defendant has failed to make any showing that any governmental official acted intentionally in leaving the images on his computer. Mem. and Order at 10, Appellant's App. at 143. [T]he relevant inquiry when assessing claims of outrageous government conduct is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances . . . the government's conduct is so shocking, outrageous and intolerable that it offends the universal sense of justice. United States v. Garcia, 411 F.3d 1173, 1181 (10th Cir.2005) (further quotation omitted). `To succeed on an outrageous conduct defense, the defendant must show either (1) excessive government involvement in the creation of the crime, or (2) significant governmental coercion to induce the crime.' Id. (quoting Pedraza, 27 F.3d at 1521). An outrageous conduct defense is of narrow scope. Id. (quoting United States v. Lacey, 86 F.3d 956, 964 (10th Cir.1996)). We agree with the district court that, assuming the government did return Perrine's computer to him with child pornography still on it, that was the product of negligence or incompetence, at most. It hardly meets the high standard of outrageous conduct.