Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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. Manley

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division

August 28, 2014



BRIAN C. WIMES, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David P. Rush's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #38) denying Defendant Jeffrey Manley's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. #24). Defendant filed objections (Doc. #40) to the Report and Recommendation. After an independent review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties' arguments, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Rush's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #38), Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements of Defendant Jeffrey Manley (Doc. #24) is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rush's Report and Recommendation be attached to and made part of this Order.



Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b), the above-styled criminal action was referred to the undersigned for preliminary review. Defendant Jeffrey D. Manley filed a Motion to Suppress Statements in the matter (Doc. 24). Manley argues that any and all statements made to law enforcement prior to receiving Miranda warnings should be deemed inadmissible at trial in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as should statements made after Miranda because they were "tainted" by prior constitutional violations. A hearing was held on the motion on April 9, 2014. Defendant Manley was present with counsel, Stacie R. Bilyeu. The United States was represented by James J. Kelleher. For the reasons set forth below, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Suppress Statements be DENIED.


Detective Jeff Romero testified at the hearing that in January 2013 he supervised the Cyber Crimes Unit of the Nixa, Missouri, Police Department. Detective Romero testified that the Regional Internet Crimes office detected a computer involved in child pornography. Using the Internet Protocol (IP) Address, law enforcement traced the computer to Defendant Manley. Internet Service Provider (ISP) CenturyLink indicated Manley's service address as 77 Fairwood Road, Lampe, Missouri. On February 25, 2013, police obtained a warrant to search that address, which they believed was Manley's home. The next day, they executed the warrant at 77 Fairwood to find that Manley did not reside there, but at 175 Fairwood Road in Lampe. Detective Fields left the scene to apply for a search warrant for the correct address, while the other detectives and officers proceeded to Manley's residence down the road. There was no answer to the knock on the door of Manley's residence, so officers waited in the street and in Manley's driveway for Detective Fields to return with the search warrant.

While they were waiting, Defendant Manley arrived by car and stopped in the road in front of the house. His daughter and an alleged victim were passengers. Detective Romero and Detective Orville Choate identified themselves and asked Manley to pull his car into the driveway to speak with the officers. Manley complied, and exited the car. The officers stated they were investigating a computer at his residence for child pornography. Manley replied, unprompted, that there was "some of that" on his computer. Detective Choate asked Manley to clarify whether he meant that his computer contained child pornography. Manley replied, yes.

Manley then called his mother on his mobile phone and asked her to pick up the girls. Officers did not question Manley while waiting for his mother to arrive. Manley was allowed to return to his vehicle to retrieve his ID, although an officer secured the vehicle first by removing a handgun from it.

When his mother arrived, Manley told her that the police were there to investigate downloading of child pornography. His mother stated that it could be downloaded accidentally. Manley told her that some of it was accidental and some of it was not. Police were not a part of this conversation, but could hear it from their vantage point. Manley's mother placed the girls in her vehicle. Manley was allowed, with Detective Choate as an escort, to say goodbye to his daughter.

Detective Choate asked Manley for consent to search the house without a warrant. Manley denied the request. Later, after his mother and daughter had departed, Manley gave Detective Choate permission to search the residence because "the end result will be the same." Detective Choate replied that they would wait for arrival of the warrant. Due to the cold temperature, Manley asked if they could wait inside the house.

After the detectives had performed a "safety sweep" to ensure no one else was in the house, they waited with Manley in the kitchen. Officers allowed Manley to use the restroom by himself. When Manley returned to the kitchen, after approximately ten minutes, Detective Romero advised him of his Miranda rights and questioned him regarding the alleged downloading of child pornography. Manley made several admissions to the detectives. During the course of that interview, Detective Fields returned with a search warrant, and the detectives searched the house. At the conclusion of the interview, Manley invoked his right to an attorney. Detective Romero immediately ...

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.