Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
United States v. Goguen
United States District Court, D. Maine
May 5, 2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ROBERT GOGUEN, Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ROBERT GOGUEN, Defendant
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
C. NIVISON U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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. After a hearing and upon
consideration of the parties' arguments, I recommend the
Court deny the motion.
Findings of Fact
on the evidence, I recommend the Court find the following
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
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
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
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