FBI Job Interview Leads to Criminal Charges; Federal Appeals Court Upholds Conviction

By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

Nov. 26, 2012 – Despite the child pornography stored his home computer, Dominick Pelletier was optimistic about his chances of working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He didn’t think the “research” he did would be a problem. The FBI thought otherwise.

In his FBI job interview, Pelletier said he did a child pornography research project in graduate school after failing the FBI’s polygraph test questions on sexual crimes. He admitted downloading sexual images of children on his computer as part of his research.

Agents asked more questions as part of the continuing “job interview,” and as the FBI moved to secure a search warrant, Pelletier consented to a search of his home.

After five hours of questioning, Pelletier still wondered whether the issue would delay the job application process. It did. The FBI found more than 600 illegal images on his computer.

In federal district court, Pelletier moved to suppress statements to FBI agents and the evidence obtained from his computer, arguing that the FBI agents never gave him Miranda warnings, required before police conduct custodial interrogation of criminal suspects.

A federal district court in Illinois ruled Miranda warnings were unnecessary because Pelletier made the statements involuntarily while out-of-custody, and the FBI would have discovered the files with a search warrant anyway. He ultimately pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal.

In U.S. v. Pelletier, No. 12-1274 (Nov. 21, 2012), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction, concluding that Miranda warnings were not necessary because Pelletier was not in custody when he made them.

“A reasonable applicant for an FBI job would expect to go through what Pelletier experienced: lengthy interviews in an FBI office, encounters with armed FBI agents, and security measures limiting free movement through the building,” wrote Judge Michael Kanne for the panel.

“Thus, we do not think that a reasonable person in Pelletier’s position would have thought the interview was custodial,” continued Judge Kanne, noting the FBI did not extend a job offer.

The panel applied the “inevitable discovery doctrine” to conclude that Pelletier’s computer files would have been uncovered with a search warrant even if his consent was involuntary.

Under this doctrine, the government can avoid suppression of evidence by showing that inevitably, it would have been discovered anyway through lawful means.

“It is unreasonable to think that, after Pelletier admitted to two FBI agents that he had child pornography, the FBI would have failed to follow up and obtain a search warrant,” Judge Kanne wrote. “That fact alone is enough for the inevitable discovery doctrine to apply.”