United States v. Martique Vanderpool

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 25-4121
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4121 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MARTIQUE CABRAL VANDERPOOL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah L. Boardman, District Judge. (8:23-cr-00234-DLB-1)

Submitted: May 4, 2026 Decided: June 17, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Stuart A. Berman, LERCH, EARLY & BREWER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellant. Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General, Jesus A. Osete, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, David N. Goldman, Civil Rights Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Kelly O. Hayes, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4121 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Martique Vanderpool, a police officer, arrested a distressed 19-year-old

for speeding, impounded her car, took her to an empty police station, and coerced her into

having sex with him. To cover his tracks, Vanderpool filed a report suggesting he conducted

a routine traffic stop. He was convicted of submitting a false report to impede a federal

investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Because Vanderpool’s various challenges to

his conviction lack merit, we affirm.

First, Vanderpool argues there was insufficient evidence he intended to impede an

investigation “within the jurisdiction of ” a federal agency, 18 U.S.C. § 1519, because the

government did not prove a federal investigation “was reasonably foreseeable” to

Vanderpool at the time of the offense. Vanderpool Br. 20. But this Court has squarely held

that “knowledge of a federal investigation under § 1519 is a jurisdictional element and not

a separate mens rea requirement that the [factfinder] must specifically find.” United States

v. Hassler, 992 F.3d 243, 247 (4th Cir. 2021). Thus, the government was “not required to

prove that [Vanderpool] knew or contemplated”—or reasonably foresaw—“that the

investigation he intended to impede was within the jurisdiction of a federal agency.” Id.

Second, Vanderpool contends the district court erred by denying him a hearing under

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), based on allegations that officers omitted

information from search warrant applications. Per Vanderpool, the applications failed to

note that he initially pulled the arrestee over for speeding and that witnesses had been

inconsistent about whether a second officer was present when Vanderpool had sex with the

arrestee. But Vanderpool has not made the necessary “substantial preliminary showing”

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4121 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/17/2026 Pg: 3 of 4

that including those facts would have “defeated . . . probable cause.” United States v. Haas,

986 F.3d 467, 474 (4th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks removed). The lawfulness of the initial

traffic stop had little to do with the subsequent crime the warrant sought evidence of

(first-degree rape). And the witnesses’ stories, which were “otherwise in accord,” diverged

only on a point that was immaterial to Vanderpool’s alleged crimes. JA 350. We therefore

affirm the district court’s conclusion that no Franks hearing was required.

Third, Vanderpool asserts the district court should have suppressed evidence

obtained from the warrants, alleging various defects. The government counters that, even

if the warrants were deficient, the evidence should not be excluded because officers relied

in good faith on facially valid warrants. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–23

(1984). Vanderpool makes no attempt to explain how—even assuming that the warrants

were invalid—they were “so facially deficient” that officers could not “reasonably” have

relied on them, nor is that apparent from the face of the warrants themselves. Id. at 923

(emphasis added). Vanderpool’s conclusory statement that the good-faith exception “does

not apply here,” Vanderpool Br. 38 n.3, is precisely the sort of “passing shot” that does not

suffice to put an argument properly before us, Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int’l LLC, 856 F.3d

307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks removed). We therefore affirm the district court’s

denial of Vanderpool’s motions to suppress.

Finally, Vanderpool argues the district court should have dismissed the indictment

because the government violated the Fifth Amendment by delaying in obtaining it. But

Vanderpool has not established, as he must, that any delay caused him “substantial actual

prejudice.” United States v. Villa, 70 F.4th 704, 716 (4th Cir. 2023). Vanderpool’s prejudice

3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4121 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/17/2026 Pg: 4 of 4

argument turns on the unavailability of two witnesses who could have impeached the

arrestee’s credibility and “established a picture of poor training, vague instructions, and

hostility in the” police department. Vanderpool Br. 48. But such testimony would not

“likely affect[ ] ” the “disposition of the criminal proceeding” as required for substantial

prejudice. Villa, 70 F.4th at 716 (quotation marks removed). Vanderpool took the stand

during a different trial on related state charges and admitted he had sex with the arrestee at

the police station, had her car towed, and later had the car returned to her—none of which

was in his report—and the government introduced those inculpatory statements in this

federal trial. Given Vanderpool’s own admissions, we fail to see how impeaching the

arrestee (who did not even testify at Vanderpool’s federal trial) or proving the police

department was poorly managed “tend[ed] to exculpate” Vanderpool for submitting a false

report. Jones v. Angelone, 94 F.3d 900, 909 (4th Cir. 1996). Because Vanderpool has not

established substantial prejudice, we affirm the district court’s denial of Vanderpool’s

motion to dismiss the indictment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional

process. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.