Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The defendant had sexually explicit online conversations with an officer posing as a 12-year old girl. Agents obtained a warrant to search his residence for evidence of violation of 18 U.S.C. 1470 (transfer of obscene material to a minor) and 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) (coercion or enticement of a minor), seized a computer system and cds, and found child pornography. Defendant was charged with transferring obscene material to a minor under age 16 (18 U.S.C. 1470) and possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(4)(B)). The district court granted a motion to supress, holding that the agents lacked probable cause to search for child pornography. The First Circuit reversed, based on the inevitable discovery doctrine. The agents had probable cause to search the digital media and, in searching for evidence of interaction with minors, had to thoroughly search the electronic files.

The defendant, part of a conspiracy that stole and re-sold computer parts and memory, pled guilty and was sentenced to 33 months in prison plus 36 months of supervised release and ordered to pay to the victim, jointly and severally with a co-conspirator, restitution of $800,000 plus interest. After he fell behind on the payments, the government obtained a writ of garnishment. The district court held that the government cannot meet its obligation to enforce an order of restitution to a private-party crime victim by using the garnishment procedure of the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. 3205. The First Circuit reversed, noting statutory changes that make compensation of private victims a high priority. The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 3613) specifically authorizes use of the FDCA to enforce private-victim restitution orders.

Police obtained warrants, believing that the suspect had beaten a victim with a nightstick, went to the apartment before dawn, broke down the door, and promptly removed the suspect. The suspect's 15-year-old sister claims she was pushed down, injured her knee, and was handcuffed. The parents claim to have had guns held to their heads; the mother was wearing only underpants. The suspect's girlfriend claims that officers threatened to take her baby. They were detained for 40-60 minutes. In a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, the court denied officers' motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The First Circuit reversed with respect to claims based on detention of the plaintiffs. Officers had an interest in protecting their own safety and in an unimpeded search; plaintiffs were cuffed only for the duration of the search. There was no clear constitutional violation. The court affirmed with respect to other claims. The sister's injuries were sufficient to support a Fourth Amendment claim; no reasonable officer would think it clearly necessary to point an assault weapon at a handcuffed 15-year-old girl with no history of violence. Similarly, it was not clearly reasonably necessary to point a gun at the head of a woman, not a suspect, and nearly naked. The court also declined claims of state-law official immunity.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to charges of taking a motor vehicle, by force and with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, (18 U.S.C. 2119) in exchange for an agreement that the prosecutor recommend sentencing at the lower end of the guidelines range. The agreement did not stipulate to a criminal history category, but did outline sentencing exposure and provided estimated ranges for criminal categories one through six. The presentencing report classified defendant as a career criminal, based on two prior violent felonies. The court imposed a sentence of 120 months incarceration and five years of supervision. The First Circuit affirmed. Although the defendant waived appeal, the court considered the case because the district court failed to sentence him according to the agreed upon recommendation. Defendant's argument that that the career offender classification was not meant to be triggered by convictions involving consensual mutual combat between individuals who chose this as their lifestyle amounted to acquiescence in the court's classification of the convictions and reliance on the sentencing report.

Plaintiff brought action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, claiming that the company used a kickback scheme and knowingly caused submission of false Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE claims by hospitals and doctors. The district court held that hospital claims at issue were not false or fraudulent, and that doctor claims were false or fraudulent, but not materially so. The First Circuit reversed. If kickbacks affected the transactions underlying the claims, the claims failed to meet a condition of payment and were false, regardless of the hospital's participation in or knowledge of the kickbacks. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the alleged misrepresentations were not capable of influencing Medicare's decision to pay the claims.