Court Opinion

ID: 9880820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 19:00:40.943648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:51.065404
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12947    Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 09/28/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                     In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                 No. 22-12947
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DERRICK HUNT,
       a.k.a. Derrick Martin Hunt,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cr-00530-SDG-JEM-1
USCA11 Case: 22-12947     Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12947

                           ____________________

       Before BRANCH, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Derrick Hunt appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to
       enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the pur-
       pose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct: a violation
       of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). On appeal, Hunt challenges the district
       court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant
       to a search warrant. No reversible error has been shown; we af-
       ﬁrm.
              Brieﬂy stated, oﬃcers with the Roswell Police Department
       surveilled a fast-food restaurant after receiving information that a
       missing 14-year-old girl (A.P.) would be dropped oﬀ in the vicinity.
       Oﬃcers observed a car enter the parking lot and a girl matching
       A.P.’s description exit the car. Oﬃcers conducted a traﬃc stop,
       identiﬁed the car’s driver as Hunt, and placed Hunt under arrest.
              During an interview, A.P. told oﬃcers that she had been stay-
       ing at Hunt’s apartment for three weeks, during which time she
       had had multiple sexual encounters with Hunt in exchange for
       drugs. A.P. also reported that Hunt had taken nude photographs
       of her and had videotaped their sexual encounters.
             On 7 July 2012, oﬃcers obtained a search warrant to search
       Hunt’s apartment. The search warrant listed the items to be
       searched for and seized from the premises. This list included,
       among other things, “computers, laptops, electronic data storage
USCA11 Case: 22-12947         Document: 27-1        Date Filed: 09/28/2023         Page: 3 of 5

       22-12947                   Opinion of the Court                              3

       devices, and any and all child pornographic images or data located
       within, photographs, VHS tapes, [and] Compact Disks containing
       videos.”
              Later that same day, oﬃcers executed the search warrant on
       Hunt’s home. During the search, an oﬃcer “previewed” the con-
       tents of Hunt’s computer. After locating an image of A.P., oﬃcers
       seized Hunt’s computer. On 25 July, oﬃcers obtained a second
       search warrant authorizing a full forensic search of the contents of
       Hunt’s computer.
              Hunt moved to suppress evidence found during the search
       of his home. 1 Pertinent to this appeal, Hunt argued that the oﬃc-
       ers exceeded the scope of the 7 July search warrant when they pre-
       viewed the contents of his computer. Following a suppression
       hearing, the district court denied Hunt’s motion.
               Hunt entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to
       appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The
       district court sentenced Hunt to 210 months’ imprisonment fol-
       lowed by a life term of supervised release. 2
             On appeal, Hunt challenges the district court’s denial of his
       motion to suppress. According to Hunt, oﬃcers exceeded the
       scope of the 7 July search warrant when -- during the search of his
       home -- oﬃcers “previewed” the contents of his computer. Hunt

       1 Hunt also moved to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop. The

       district court denied the motion; that ruling is not before us on appeal.
       2 Hunt raises no challenge to the lawfulness of his sentence.
USCA11 Case: 22-12947      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12947

       argues that the plain language of the search warrant authorized of-
       ﬁcers to search only the contents of “electronic data storage de-
       vices,” not the contents of “computers.” As a result of the sup-
       posed improper search, Hunt says all evidence found on his com-
       puter must be suppressed.
              When reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to
       suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual ﬁndings for
       clear error and the district court’s application of law to those facts
       de novo. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 870 (11th Cir.
       2022) (en banc). We construe the facts in the light most favorable
       to the prevailing party. Id.
              Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must de-
       scribe with particularity “the place to be searched, and the persons
       or things to be seized.” See U.S. Const. amend. IV; United States v.
       Travers, 233 F.3d 1327, 1329 (11th Cir. 2000). “The permissible
       scope of a search is governed by the terms of the warrant, and the
       search may be ‘as extensive as reasonably required to locate the
       items described in the warrant.’” United States v. Moon, 33 F.4th
       1284, 1296 (11th Cir. 2022).
              The 7 July search warrant listed the evidence or contraband
       to be searched for at Hunt’s residence, including “computers, lap-
       tops, electronic storage devices, and any and all child pornographic
       images or data located within.” (emphasis added). The district court
       determined that the warrant’s “located within” language expressly
       permitted oﬃcers to search the contents of Hunt’s computer dur-
       ing the 7 July search of Hunt’s home. In addition, the district court
USCA11 Case: 22-12947      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 09/28/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-12947                Opinion of the Court                          5

       concluded that oﬃcers -- at a minimum -- were permitted to pre-
       view the computer’s contents to determine whether it contained
       the kind of evidence subject to seizure.
               A plain reading of the search warrant supports the district
       court’s ruling. The language of the search warrant can be inter-
       preted reasonably as authorizing a search for pornographic mate-
       rial “located within” all three of the listed devices -- computers, lap-
       tops, and electronic storage devices -- found at Hunt’s home.
              Given the kind of evidence described in the search warrant,
       we also have no doubt that the oﬃcers were permitted to perform
       a “preview” search to determine whether the computer was an
       item subject to seizure under the warrant. See Moon, 33 F.4th at
       1297 (concluding that a warrant authorizing the seizure of “tapes”
       permitted an oﬃcer to view a small portion of each tape found on
       the premises “to determine whether each particular tape fell within
       the warrant”).
              Considering the plain language of the search warrant and
       the circumstances involved in this case, the district court commit-
       ted no error in determining that oﬃcers were authorized by the 7
       July search warrant to preview the contents of the computer found
       at Hunt’s apartment.
              AFFIRMED.