United States v. Bateman

Citations: 805 F. Supp. 1041; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16327; 1992 WL 309830Docket: 1:92-cr-00001

Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire; September 23, 1992; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Larry Lane Bateman filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements in a criminal case concerning child pornography, citing two primary grounds. First, he contended that the police did not provide the magistrate with any information regarding the informant's reliability, failing to establish the informant's credibility. Second, Bateman argued that the informant's knowledge was minimal, stale, and based on uncorroborated hearsay, characterizing the affidavit as containing boilerplate language, speculation, and innuendo.

After reviewing the motion and the affidavit supporting probable cause for the search warrant, the court denied the motion to suppress. The court found that the affidavit supported a finding of probable cause and ruled that the information was not stale. The court also cited the totality of circumstances test, referencing relevant case law, including Illinois v. Gates and United States v. Leon, to justify the decision.

The informant's history with Bateman included a significant timeline: in 1979, they met in high school, with the informant participating in a nude filming project in 1980. Continued contact occurred through letters and phone calls. Notably, in September 1988, the informant received child pornography from Bateman, and in April 1990, he unexpectedly received two boxes of videos, which led to further shipments over the next year, totaling over 130 videotapes and 31 albums of child pornography. Additionally, in Spring 1990, the informant received a video camera from Bateman to film pornographic acts. The court emphasized the importance of reading the full affidavit for context but affirmed the basis for probable cause in the case.

The informant created and sent videotapes of sexually explicit conduct to Bateman, who edited and returned them. In August 1990, the informant returned a video camera to Bateman, who then provided him with another camera and equipment, enabling the informant to continue producing pornographic videos. After moving to Ohio in November 1990, the informant received Polaroid pictures of himself taken by Bateman when he was seventeen, along with a videotape of pornographic content featuring a male he recognized from a prior visit to Bateman's home. Bateman allegedly claimed the edited tape would be unprovable in court. 

In early 1991, the informant received an unedited videotape containing child pornography, confirming the identity of a much younger subject he had previously met. By April 1991, the informant returned another package from Bateman, indicating his desire to cease communication. A significant lapse in contact occurred until September 1991, when the informant expressed his unwillingness to converse with Bateman during a phone call. 

In April 1992, the Rockingham County Attorney identified Bateman as a suspect in child pornography violations, and the informant was granted immunity for interviews in New Hampshire and Ohio. Following a police interview in July 1992, the informant detailed his interactions with Bateman from 1979 to September 1991. An affidavit was later submitted to obtain a search warrant for Bateman's home, leading to the discovery of prohibited materials and Bateman's arrest. The affidavit established probable cause, detailing the expertise of law enforcement regarding child pornography and outlining methods used by offenders to create and store such materials. It also documented the informant's knowledge of Bateman's activities up to September 1991.

The history of the videotapes, spanning fifteen years, and the seven-month gap between the informant's last contact with Bateman in September 1991 and the investigation's initiation in April 1992, do not impact the validity of the search warrant. The three-month duration taken by New Hampshire police to investigate and execute the warrant is also deemed irrelevant. Applying the 'totality of circumstances' test from Illinois v. Gates and the good-faith exception from United States v. Leon, the search warrant was obtained and executed based on objective good faith. The potential staleness of the information supporting probable cause is mitigated by factors such as the nature of the suspect (a suspected pedophile) and the specific nature of the evidence sought (child pornography). The court emphasized that timeliness must be assessed based on the unique context of the case rather than a strict formula, highlighting that common sense and reasonableness guide the determination of probable cause. The court found no evidence suggesting that the information was stale, leading to the denial of the motion to suppress evidence and statements.