United States v. Johnson, No. 16-2355 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of production of child pornography and was sentenced to 354 months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence and the district court's application of a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2251 based on his prior conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree. The court concluded that the information used to establish probable cause was not stale where the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took the photos of the victim, was not based on stale information; even if the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, the Leon good-faith exception prevents suppression of the seized evidence; and the Government met its burden to show any error by the district court in applying the sentencing enhancement was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Ebinger, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Under the facts of the case and considering the other information contained in the warrant application, the warrant, issued eleven months after defendant took nude photos of the minor victim, was not based on stale information; additionally, the information in the application established grounds to believe evidence would be found at defendant's residence; in any event, the Leon good-faith exception prevented suppression of the evidence; even if the district court erred in enhancing defendant's sentence based on his prior Minnesota conviction for sexual conduct in the fifth degree, the district court specifically contemplated the argument and clearly indicated that it would impose the same sentence without the challenged enhancement based on its belief that a lesser sentence would not promote sufficient respect for the law; as a result, any error was harmless, and the sentence is affirmed. [ February 16, 2017
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.