Criminal Law

Defendant appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of child pornography found by his parole officers during an unannounced parole check. Defendant argued that the incriminating statements that led to the evidence being discovered could not be used against him because both the language of his parole agreement and the officers’ failure to issue Miranda warnings led to violations of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that because defendant’s parole agreement did not threaten to penalize him for asserting his Fifth Amendments rights and because defendant was not in custody at the time he revealed the incrimination information, he was required to affirmatively assert his rights under the Fifth Amendment in order to invoke the benefits of its protection. (HAMILTON and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Defendant appealed from his criminal conviction after he pleaded guilty to multiple charges relating to possession of firearms and sexual exploitation of a minor, arguing that his attorney had an actual conflict of interest, the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel, and that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. The government argued that defendant’s appeal was foreclosed by the appellate waiver contained in his plea agreement. Trial counsel had filed a motion to withdraw after discovering a controlled substance concealed in documents that he had been asked to deliver to the defendant. Counsel informed the court of the reason for his motion, but defendant was not informed of the reason and subsequently objected to his attorney’s motion to withdraw. Counsel continued to represent defendant until he pleaded guilty. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that while defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim was not foreclosed by the appellate waiver, defendant could not establish that he was adversely affected by the alleged conflict of interest. (EASTERBROOK and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud after he stole money from seven businesses and attempted to steal more through a far-reaching scheme to fraudulently induce wire transfers. At issue in the appeal was whether a provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines that directs the court to add escalating enhancements to a defendant’s offense level depending on the amount of loss referred solely to actual loss or whether it included intended, but unrealized loss. The district court determined it was the latter and calculated defendant’s sentence based on the larger number. Defendant appealed and the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the language of the guidelines. (EASTERBROOK and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy charge for his role in running a methamphetamine distribution operation while in jail. During a change-of-plea hearing, defendant notified the district court judge of mental, cognitive, and memory impairments and also provided additional evidence of those impairments and their degree prior to sentencing. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court should have sua sponte held a competency hearing. Defendant also challenged the district court’s sentencing guidelines calculation, arguing that it was based on a drug quantity erroneously attributing to him the entire amount of methamphetamine obtained by the conspiracy. Finally, defendant argued that a condition of supervised release should be vacated because the court included it in the written judgment but failed to orally pronounce it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not err by failing to hold a competency hearing or by attributing all the methamphetamine to the defendant. The Seventh Circuit also declined to vacate the condition of supervised release, explaining that conditions of supervised release included in a written judgment are mandatory. (FLAUM and BRENNAN, concurring)

Defendant appealed from the district court’s denial of his motion seeking to suppress evidence collected in conjunction with a search warrant that allowed law enforcement to place a GPS tracker on the defendant’s truck. Defendant argued that the affidavit supporting the application for a warrant lacked probable cause because some of the information contained in the affidavit was incorrect. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that an independent review of the affidavit established probable cause even without considering the misstatements. (RIPPLE and SCUDDER, concurring)

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm after he was arrested based on a tip that defendant had traveled to Wisconsin with multiple firearms to take advantage of a period of civil unrest. Law enforcement found defendant’s location by using an exigent circumstances form to obtain defendant’s real-time cell site location. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence found subsequent to the cell site location information arguing that the search was unlawful and not justified by exigent circumstances because it was incorrectly based on a “fabricated” threat to public safety. Defendant also argued that the district court incorrectly denied his request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that law enforcement reasonably believed that probable cause and exigent circumstances existed and that a Franks hearing was inapplicable under the circumstances. (BRENNAN and LEE, concurring)