United States v. Geoffrey Richard Rugh

968 F.2d 750, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15349, 1992 WL 152102
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 1992
Docket92-1114
StatusPublished
Cited by69 cases

This text of 968 F.2d 750 (United States v. Geoffrey Richard Rugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Geoffrey Richard Rugh, 968 F.2d 750, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15349, 1992 WL 152102 (8th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Geoffrey Richard Rugh appeals his sentence, and challenges the district court’s 1 *752 refusal to suppress evidence found at his home linking him to the receipt of child pornography through the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (1988). We affirm the district court’s determination that search warrant information was stale, but the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. We further affirm the trial court’s refusal to “group” the child pornography counts in sentencing.

I.

Sergeant John Talbot of the South Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, Police Department opened an investigation on Rugh on May 8, 1990. The investigation was prompted by a call from Detective Bob Nalett of the San Jose, California, Police Department, who informed Talbot that a search in San Jose revealed child pornography at the home of Damien Derringer. The items found at Derringer’s home included letters from an Excelsior, Minnesota, address indicating that a resident at that address was engaged in producing and distributing child pornography, and was sexually abusing a thirteen-year-old boy.

Specifically, Nalett reported finding envelopes bearing a return address of 25695 Wildrose Lane, Excelsior. Those envelopes — the most recent of which was postmarked in 1988 — contained letters indicating that thirteen-year-old Tommy How-itz resided at the Excelsior residence and was being molested by his father “Roger Howitz” 2 and others. The letters stated that Roger Howitz was planning to send his thirteen-year-old son to San Jose to become a sexual partner for Derringer. The letters also indicated that Roger How-itz was engaged in a profitable, nationwide child pornography distribution business. Finally, the envelopes contained photographs of prepubescent boys exposing their genitals, and twelve- to thirteen-year-old boys engaged in sodomy, masturbation, and oral copulation of the anus. Nalett told Talbot that he believed letters purportedly written by Tommy Howitz and Roger Howitz were written by the same person, an adult. Detective Nalett further informed Talbot that a check of postal records revealed that a person named How-itz lived at 25695 Wildrose Lane.

Police conducted further investigation before seeking a search warrant for Rugh’s home that same day. South Lake Minnetonka police ran checks on the license plates of two vehicles parked at the Wild-rose Lane address. The vehicles were registered to Thomas Russell Howitz and Rugh. Property records revealed the home was owned by Rugh and the phone book listed the residence as Rugh’s. A check of the Minnetonka School District records, however, revealed no teenage children named Howitz registered in the schools. In his investigatory report, Talbot said he believed there were no children at the Wild-rose address.

In his search warrant affidavit, Talbot requested permission for a nighttime search because “there could be a child involved and that child could be in danger if this warrant is not served as soon as possible.” Later the night of May 8, 1990, South Lake Minnetonka police, joined by a federal postal inspector, executed a search warrant at the Wildrose Lane address. The search uncovered a large quantity of child pornography, including photographs and videotapes, a video camera with a zoom lens, correspondence with other pedophiles, and approximately $36,000 in cash. 3 The search also uncovered records linking Rugh with the falsification of social security information.

Correspondence found at Rugh’s home included letters from Randy Anderson of Aurora, Illinois, that contained child pornography and statements that Anderson had sexually abused a fourteen-year-old boy. While executing a search warrant at Anderson’s apartment in Illinois, officers encountered a fourteen-year-old boy who was the subject of some of the pictures *753 found in Rugh’s apartment. Anderson admitted sexually abusing the boy and sending pictures of the boy to Rugh.

Rugh was charged with two counts of receiving child pornography through the mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (1988), and four counts of social security fraud. The social security fraud counts stemmed from a scheme by Rugh and his roommate to use each other’s names and social security numbers at their respective jobs.

Rugh moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his home, claiming information in the search warrant was stale. The district court agreed the information was stale, but refused to suppress the evidence, concluding that officers acted in good-faith reliance on a facially valid warrant. Rugh subsequently pleaded guilty to all six counts, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, Rugh contends the district court erred in applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3415, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). Rugh also challenges the district court’s refusal to group the two § 2252(a)(2) counts for sentencing purposes.

A. Leon Good-Faith Exception

The district court ruled the search warrant invalid, finding that probable cause to search Rugh’s home was lacking because police failed to freshen the sixteen-month-old information found in San Jose. United States v. Rugh, Nos. 3-91-70 and 3-91-71(1), slip op. at 3-4 (D.Minn. Aug. 12, 1991). The government does not challenge this finding on appeal. The district court determined that evidence seized during the search should not be suppressed, however, because officers executing the warrant acted in good-faith reliance on a facially valid warrant. Id. at 4 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 919-20, 104 S.Ct. at 3418-19).

When police objectively and reasonably believe that probable cause exists to conduct a search based on an issuing judge’s determination of probable cause, evidence seized pursuant to the ultimately invalid search warrant need not be suppressed. United States v. Simpkins, 914 F.2d 1054, 1057 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 997, 112 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1991). In assessing the good faith of officers in conducting a search, the court must look at the totality of the circumstances, including information known by officers but not presented to the issuing judge. Id. The district court’s determination that police officers acted in good faith on a facially valid warrant is a mixed question of law and fact. We therefore review this finding de novo. Id. at 1057-58.

Rugh contends officers executing the search warrant could not have believed in good faith that probable cause for the warrant existed because their investigation was inadequate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Joel Augard
954 F.3d 1090 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Bushay
859 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (N.D. Georgia, 2012)
United States v. Lemon
590 F.3d 612 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Midkiff v. Commonwealth
678 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2009)
United States v. Perry
531 F.3d 662 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Baird
580 F. Supp. 2d 889 (D. Nebraska, 2008)
Kelley v. State
269 S.W.3d 326 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2007)
United States v. McElheney
524 F. Supp. 2d 983 (E.D. Tennessee, 2007)
United States v. Richard William Gettel
474 F.3d 1081 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Robinson
441 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (D. Minnesota, 2006)
United States v. Person
427 F. Supp. 2d 894 (D. Minnesota, 2006)
United States v. Louis Winters, Jr.
411 F.3d 967 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)
Anzualda v. Commonwealth
607 S.E.2d 749 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2005)
United States v. Anderson
60 M.J. 548 (Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
968 F.2d 750, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 15349, 1992 WL 152102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-geoffrey-richard-rugh-ca8-1992.