Court Opinion

ID: 9498441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:17:26.558924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:49.951433
License: Public Domain

POOLER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully conclude that today the majority announces a dangerous precedent. According to the majority, if an individual subscribes to an Internet E-group and that E-group is determined to have an illegal purpose,7 the government has probable cause to obtain a warrant to search the subscriber’s home. This is the case even when (1) an individual’s e-mail address remains on the E-group subscriber list only for fourteen days and (2) there is no particularized evidence indicating that the individual visited the E-group subsequent to subscription or participated in the E-group’s functions in any way.
Because the majority fails to make an individualized assessment of Martin’s potential involvement in illegal activities, the majority’s holding runs counter to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). In contrast to the majority, I believe that Martin satisfies the second prong of Franks v. Delaware, because he has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Agent Binney’s “false statement [in the original affidavit] is necessary to the finding of probable cause.” See 438 U.S. 154, 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Therefore, this case should be remanded to the district court to determine, under the remaining Franks prong, whether Agent Binney’s false statements were made knowingly or recklessly. Id. at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674. Accordingly, I must dissent.
I. The Limited Scope of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A
One of the fundamental flaws underlying the majority’s reasoning is its failure to acknowledge the limited scope of the relevant crime. The relevant crime in this case, as indicated in the corrected affidavit, is the knowing transportation, possession, receipt, distribution, or reproduction of visual (not textual) depictions of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(1)-(3), 2256(8). The statute unambiguously defines “child pornog*79raphy” as “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” of, inter alia, “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8) (emphasis added). While Section 2252A criminalizes any form of trading child pornography (hereinafter referred to as the “trading of illegal visual depictions”), it does not criminalize (1) the trading of textual depictions of any kind or (2) the trading of visual depictions of children that are not sexually explicit but are “sexually arousing to a given individual” (referred to in the affidavit as “child erotica”).
Proper consideration of the limited scope of the relevant crime clearly demonstrates that Agent Binney’s erroneous statements-that all subscribers to the girlsl2-16 E-group, including Martin, automatically received approximately fourteen illegal visual depictions during the fourteen days that Martin’s e-mail was listed as a subscriber to the E-group 8-were crucial to the determination that there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found in Martin’s home. Agent Binney’s false statements provided the only basis for the inference that there was a fair probability that all E-group subscribers would possess illegal visual depictions.

II. The Majority’s Inferential Leaps

The majority reasons that, even without Agent Binney’s false statements, the corrected affidavit is sufficient because it putatively establishes that (1) Martin subscribed to the E-group; (2) the “overriding, if not the sole, purpose” of the E-group was illegal; and (3) collectors of child pornography “overwhelmingly use the internet and computers to distribute and hoard this illegal pornographic material.” Op. at 74.
As I will discuss below, the reasoning underlying this holding is deficient because it relies on numerous unreasonable inferences to gloss over the deficiencies in the corrected affidavit. First, the corrected affidavit does not allege facts that support an inference that Martin participated in any of the E-group’s legal or illegal functions. Second, the corrected affidavit does not support the conclusion that the overriding purpose of the E-group was illegal. See Op. at 74-75. Third, the corrected affidavit’s allegation that Martin was an E-group subscriber indicates only Martin’s propinquity to others who were committing a crime, which is not sufficient to establish probable cause. Fourth, the corrected affidavit’s allegations regarding the propensities of “collectors of child pornography” do little to establish probable cause with respect to Martin.

A. Participation in the E-group

Based on the affidavit’s allegation that Martin’s e-mail address was listed as a subscriber to the E-group, the majority erroneously infers that it is likely that Martin participated in those functions of the E-group that were illegal.9
*80The text of the affidavit does not permit this inferential leap. The individualized portions of the corrected affidavit solely establish (1) that Martin’s e-mail address was entered as a subscriber to the girlsl2-16 E-group on February 1, 2001, and (2) that Martin’s e-mail remained on the subscriber list for fourteen days. The affidavit does not indicate that Martin ever searched the site’s functions, received any correspondence from the E-group, or otherwise had anything to do with the E-group between February 1, 2001 and February 14, 2001.10 E-group subscription, which requires a few simple clicks on an individual’s personal computer, is simply not enough to indicate that an individual has taken an affirmative step to participate in the E-group’s activities. The majority can cite no case that indicates otherwise.11

B. Purpose of the E-group

The content of the corrected affidavit does not support the majority’s conclusion that the overriding purpose of the E-group was dedicated to illegal activity. Op. at 74-75. There is nothing in the corrected affidavit that alleges or otherwise establishes that the E-group was wholly or mostly dedicated to the trading of illegal visual depictions. While the “file posting” function of the E-group was dedicated to the activity of uploading and downloading illegal visual depictions, the affidavit lists a number of other E-group functions that were purely text-based. See Perez, 247 F.Supp.2d at 483 (“Subscribers could have engaged in protected, non-criminal activities, such as answering survey questions or chatting.”); see also United States v. Ku-nen, 323 F.Supp.2d 390, 400 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).
Although we may deeply disapprove of activities such as visiting chat rooms, taking online polls, and posting textual messages within the context of the girlsl2-16 E-group, these text-based activities are not illegal within the meaning of Section 2252A, the offense with which Martin is charged. Contrary to the majority’s assertions, the corrected affidavit does not establish that these text-based functions were principally dedicated to the acquisition of illegal visual depictions. The girlsl2-16 E-group welcome message, which the majority quotes at length, is undoubtedly distasteful, but its distastefulness does not indicate that the overriding purpose of the site was illegal. In fact, the welcome message indicates that the E-group had functions that did not contain illegal visual depictions; it states, inter alia, that members could use the group to “connect with others,” “share views and opinions ... without censorship,” tell stories, get together socially and share personal information.
The majority’s assertion that the overriding purpose of the E-group was illegal is further challenged by the fact that the vast majority of the e-mail messages that Agent Binney received while he monitored the girlsl2-16 E-group contained text and did not contain illegal visual depictions. See Binney Aff. at 32. During the two-week period that Agent Binney was a member of the girlsl2-16 E-group he received a total of 193 e-mails (1) 14 of which contained child pornography; (2) 77 of *81which contained depictions of child erotica; and (3) 102 of which contained only text. Therefore, only 7.25 percent of the 193 emails sent to Agent Binney from the girlsl2-16 E-group contained illegal visual depictions. Id. In light of the fact that less than 8 percent of e-mails contained illegal visual depictions, it is purely speculative for the majority to infer that the overriding purpose of the E-group was to trade illegal visual depictions.12
Not only is it legal to trade textual depictions and child erotica under the relevant statute, but this Court has also indicated that, as a general matter, possession of child erotica is not relevant to the crime of trading illegal visual depictions. See United States v. Harvey, 991 F.2d 981, 994-96 (2d Cir.1993). In Harvey, we held that evidence of “simulated child pornography” and child erotica13 was admissible only because an entrapment defense was raised and because there was additional evidence of defendant’s predisposition. We stated that we did not believe that possession of images of child erotica alone “would demonstrate a predisposition to obtain child pornography materials illegally.” Id.; see also Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 551, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992) (“Evidence of predisposition to do what [is] lawful is not, by itself, sufficient to show predisposition to do what is ... illegal .... ”).

C. Probable cause through propinquity

Based on the corrected affidavit’s allegations that some E-group subscribers engaged in illegal activity such as downloading illegal visual depictions, the majority infers that there is a fair probability that all subscribers, including Martin, were also engaging in illegal activity. I agree with the majority that there is no question that the affidavit establishes that some E-group subscribers used the E-group for illegal purposes. The illegal activity of some subscribers, standing alone, however, is not sufficient to establish probable cause with respect to Martin as an individual. As the Supreme Court has stated “mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.” See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979).14
The majority’s focus on group probabilities runs counter to the well-settled notion that probable cause must be based on par*82ticularized facts. See Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 91, 100 S.Ct. 338 (“Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person”). The corrected affidavit’s allegation that Martin was an E-group subscriber is simply not enough without something more that indicates that he actually participated in the illegal activities of the group. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 951 F.2d 999, 1003 (9th Cir.1991) (ruling that individual officer’s membership in corrupt police unit was not sufficient for probable cause without further proof that the officer actually participated in illegal activities); United States v. Rubio, 727 F.2d 786, 793-94 (9th Cir.1984) (declaring that membership in Hell’s Angels, standing alone, is not sufficient for probable cause without particularized allegation that the individual participated in the organization’s criminal activity).

D. Reliance on collector characteristics

The majority exaggerates the relevance of the corrected affidavit’s descriptions of “child pornography collectors” (hereafter referred to as “collectors of illegal visual depictions”) by improperly inferring that all subscribers to the E-group are collectors of illegal visual depictions.15 This erroneous inference allows the majority to attribute the characteristics of these eol-lectors-including the possession of illegal visual depictions-to all subscribers of the E-group (and therefore Martin). The affidavit does not support this inference. At no point does the affidavit describe the universe of subscribers to the E-groups, let alone allege that the E-groups’ memberships are entirely composed of collectors of illegal visual depictions. It is an inferential fallacy of ancient standing to conclude that, because members of group A (collectors of illegal visual depictions) are likely to be members of group B (subscribers to specified E-groups) then group B is entirely, or even largely composed of, members of group A.
Such reasoning would lead us to conclude that if collectors of illegal visual depictions tend to be men, then men are likely to be collectors of illegal visual depictions. The majority justifies this inference by stating that it is “common sense” that any person who subscribes to one of these E-groups “would more than likely download and possess” illegal visual depictions. Op. at 75. The majority’s conclusion that E-group subscribers are likely to be collectors of illegal visual depictions is “common sense” only if one studiously ignores the affidavit’s extensive description of the text-based functions of the E-group. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (indicating that “common sense” determinations must be based on the content set forth in the affidavit).

III. Conclusion

To conclude, I note that a subscription to a wholly-illegal E-group, which girls 12-16 is not, can arguably serve numerous legal ends. This is true particularly in light of the anonymity and simplicity of subscription. Because the majority ignores the need for individualized assessments, the majority would find probable cause where a concerned parent, seeking to understand potential threats to his children, subscribed to one of these E-groups and neglected to go through the process of *83removing his e-mail address from the list of subscribers until two weeks later. Under the majority’s reasoning, there is a substantial likelihood of criminal activity and the government has sufficient information to obtain a search warrant to enter his home. If a researcher, interested in studying the crime of unauthorized downloading of music, subscribes to an E-group that is determined to be dedicated to illegal activity, the government, under the majority’s reasoning, has probable cause to search her home without any additional individualized allegations besides her subscription to the E-group.
The majority erroneously attempts to create the required nexus between Martin and illegal activity by appealing to “common sense.” While the majority is correct that a magistrate presented with a warrant may “make a practical, common-sense decision,” that decision must be based on the “circumstances set forth in the affidavit.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Here, the corrected affidavit fails to establish a sufficient nexus between Martin and illegal activity. I agree with the majority that we must be mindful of the difference between a probable cause determination and a prima facie violation of Section 2252A. I agree with the majority that there is a need to provide law enforcement with latitude in conducting criminal investigations. I agree that the police found evidence of a crime in Martin’s home. Even in light of the above, however, we cannot ignore the requirement of having particularized information about an individual before finding probable cause. Because I cannot join the majority’s erosion of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

. The majority's holding is a moving target, but I believe that "illegal purpose” is a fair characterization. See Op. at 74 (probable cause when individual is a member of organization whose "overriding, if not [ ] sole purpose” is illegal); Op. at 75 (whose "essential purpose” is illegal); Op. at 75 (whose purpose is illicit); Op. at 75 (whose "raison d’etre, or primary reason for existence” is to effectuate illegal activity); Op. at 76 (whose "purpose is unlawful”); Op. at 77 (whose functions serve "primarily as a means for effecting illegal activity”); Op. at 77 (whose "modus operan-di” is criminal).

. The majority downplays these crucial false statements about Martin's receipt of illegal visual depictions as relating to “general investigative facts.” Op. at 69. Agent Binney's crucial statement that all subscribers automatically received e-mails containing illegal visual depictions was later proven to be entirely false. Indeed, as observed in another Candyman case, the “vast majority of subscribers ... elected to receive no e-mails." See United States v. Perez, 247 F.Supp.2d 459, 482-83 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (emphasis added).

. The majority states that “membership in the e-group reasonably implied use of the website.” Op. at 75.

. The lack of individualized information is particularly troubling in light of the fact that the government could have obtained additional individualized information about subscribers' activities from Yahoo!. See Perez, 247 F.Supp.2d at 483.

. The majority’s statement that "those who view [child pornography] are likely to download and store child pornography” is irrelevant to the probable cause determination in this case because there are absolutely no allegations in the affidavit that Martin "viewed” illegal visual depictions. Op. at 77.

.Even assuming arguendo that the girlsl2-16 E-group was wholly dedicated to an illegal purpose and that membership in a wholly illegal organization is a proper basis for probable cause, the affidavit is still insufficient for probable cause purposes because it continues to lack the requisite nexus between Martin and the trading of illegal visual depictions. Furthermore, unlike the case before us, the cases that discuss membership in a wholly illegal organization as a basis for probable cause mostly involve factual scenarios where the crime of conspiracy is at issue and therefore membership in an organization with illegal purposes is highly relevant to the crime alleged. See, e.g. United States v. Killip, 819 F.2d 1542, 1550 (10th Cir.1987); Rubio, 727 F.2d at 792-93. Conspiracy is not the relevant crime in this case.

. The Harvey court does not use the term “child erotica” but describes content that falls within the corrected affidavit’s definition of "child erotica.” The Court stated that it was referring to a videotape “depicting underage girls on a nudist beach, although that videotape d[id] not depict sexually explicit conduct.” 991 F.2d at 994.

. The majority suggests that propinquity to others who are committing a crime is enough. For instance, the majority indicates that Martin is likely to possess illegal visual depictions because child pornography (1) “was available” to subscribers; (2) "was being distributed” to some subscribers; and (3) was being received and downloaded by Agent Binney. Op. at 76.

. See Kunen, 323 F.Supp.2d at 400 ("The basis for concluding that membership may be automatically equated with the status of a collector is questionable, particularly in the absence of the pivotal [misrepresentation by Binney] that every member received every email.'1) (quoting Kunen, Nos. 02-cr-326, 02-cr-1388, 02-cr-734, 02-cr-2965, Mem. and Order at 7-9 (May 23, 2003)).