Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Goguen

United States District Court, D. Maine

May 5, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ROBERT GOGUEN, Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ROBERT GOGUEN, Defendant

          RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

          JOHN C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Following a search of a laptop computer seized from Defendant's apartment, the Government charged Defendant with one count of possession of child pornography (1:16-cr-00167-JAW) and also moved to revoke Defendant's conditions of supervised release. (1:11-cr-00003-JAW.) The matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search. (ECF No. 174.[1] After a hearing and upon consideration of the parties' arguments, I recommend the Court deny the motion.

         Proposed Findings of Fact

         Based on the evidence, I recommend the Court find the following facts:

1. In September 2012, Defendant was sentenced in 1:11-cr-00003-JAW for the failure to register as a sex offender. The sentence included a three-year period of supervised release upon conclusion of a 16-month prison sentence.
2. In May 2013, the terms of Defendant's supervised release were amended to require Defendant to comply with the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program because Defendant had been found to possess a laptop computer with numerous pornographic images and videos.
3. In September 2013, Defendant was adjudged to be in violation of his conditions of release for violating the policies and procedures of the sex offender treatment program in which he was required to participate. On the violation, the Court sentenced Defendant to five months in prison and 31 months of supervised release.
4. Under the terms of the sex offender treatment program in which Defendant was required to participate, Defendant was prohibited from possessing or viewing any pornographic material.
5. In October and November 2015, Defendant was subject to the conditions of supervised release in 1:11-cr-00003-JAW. The United States Probation Office was responsible for supervising Defendant and monitoring his compliance with the terms of his supervised release. Probation officers Mitchell Oswald and Joseph Maloney were involved in the supervision of Defendant.
6. On October 28, 2015, the United States Probation Office received an anonymous tip regarding Defendant. The Probation Office summarized the tip in a memorandum as follows: [The tipster's] niece takes her children to the Together Place food pantry often and [] [defendant] is working there. [The tipster] found out about [defendant's] past, as there was a newspaper article in the Bangor Daily News recently. They started doing a little research and asking about [defendant] because [defendant] has been hanging around the neighborhood, showing porn to children and bragging about getting away with doing stuff he is not supposed to and duping the government. [The tipster] believes that [defendant] was using Klonopin last night. [The tipster] said that [defendant] has a blue laptop and also a smart phone and [defendant] changes the sim cards in his phone to conceal the dirty pictures.
7. The probation office did not receive any information about the tipster other than the information contained in the memorandum of the communication.
8. Prior to receiving the tip, Officer Oswald was aware Defendant lived next to the food pantry, was aware Defendant frequented the food pantry, was aware of the newspaper article as Defendant had mentioned the article to Officer Oswald, was aware that Defendant had previously accessed pornography in violation of the terms of the sex offender treatment program in which Defendant was required to participate, and was aware that in May 2013, the terms of Defendant's supervised release were amended to require Defendant to comply with the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program because Defendant had been found to possess a laptop computer with numerous pornographic images and videos.
9. The terms of Defendant's supervised release included the following provision: Defendant shall at all times readily submit to a search of his residence, and of any premises under his dominion and control, by his supervising officer, upon the officer's request when the officer has reasonable basis to believe that such a search will lead to the discovery of evidence in violation of the terms of supervised release, including pornographic materials that Defendant is prohibited from possessing under the rules of his sex offender treatment program.
10. On November 10, 2015, Officers Oswald and Maloney appeared at Defendant's apartment to conduct a home visit and asked Defendant about the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.