Fourth Amendment:
A. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
B. Reasonable Suspicion/Vehicle Stops
C. Warrant Exceptions
D.Consent Searches and Seizures
E. Search Warrants
F. Arrest Related Issues
G. Miscellaneous Fourth Amendment
Warrant Exceptions
Supreme CourtC. Warrant Exceptions
•Warrant Exception - Exigent Circumstances
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 05-502 (5/22/06)
> The police arrived at a home in response to a 3:00 a.m. call about a loud party. Upon arriving, the police heard a loud fight going on inside, and went to the back of the house. Through a screen door, the officers observed several adults trying to restrain a juvenile, who then broke free and punched one of the adults, giving him a bloody mouth. One officer then opened the screen door and announced his presence. No one responded, so he stepped into the kitchen and again announced his presence. The fight then stopped and defendants were arrested and charged with minor offenses in state court. Defendants moved to suppress all evidence obtained by the police after the entry into the home, and the state court granted the motion. The prosecution appealed through the state court system and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: The Court held that a warrantless entry into a home by police may be justified in order to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury. The officer’s subjective motivation for the entry is irrelevant as long as her actions are objectively reasonable. In the case, the Court found that the need to protect the occupants of the home from the ongoing altercation justified the officers’ entry. The Court also held that the officers acted reasonably in opening the screen door to announce their presence because a knock on the door would not likely have been heard by the occupants. Accordingly, the state court’s suppression of the evidence was reversed.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
Michigan v. Fisher, 09-91 (12/7/09)
> Officers were called to a home regarding a disturbance. Upon arriving, officers found a vehicle in the driveway that appeared to have been in an accident, damaged fence posts along the property, and three broken windows. There was blood on the hood of the vehicle and the door to the house. Through a window, officers could see defendant inside screaming and throwing things. Officers observed that defendant had a cut on his hand, and the officers inquired through the window as to whether he needed medical attention. Defendant ignored the question and told the officers to get a warrant. Officers decided to enter the house, and defendant then pointed a gun at the officers. Defendant was charged in state court with assault and he moved to suppress the evidence. The state court granted the motion and the ruling was affirmed on appeal. The state appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: The Court held that the warrantless entry by the officers into the home was justified by exigent circumstances, namely the need to provide emergency aid. Specifically, the Court found that it was objectively reasonable to believe that either another person may be in danger or that defendant would harm himself in his own rage. This finding was supported by the signs of recent injury, the car accident, and defendant’s violent acts in his house. Accordingly, the state court’s ruling was reversed.
• Warrant Exception-Search Incident to Arrest
Arizona v. Gant, 07-542 (4/21/09)
> Defendant was arrested on an open warrant for driving without a license. The officers secured him in a police car and searched his vehicle, finding a gun and drugs. In his subsequent state prosecution, defendant moved to suppress the evidence and the trial court denied the motion, finding that the search was a lawful search incident to arrest. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
* Holding: The Court held that an officer may search a vehicle pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception only if “the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Thus, because defendant was detained in the back of a police car and the offense of arrest – driving without a license – did not lead to the search, the Court found that the search of the car was not justified as a search incident to arrest. Accordingly, the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling was affirmed.
Sixth Circuit Decisions
• Warrant Exception-Exigent CircumstancesU.S. v. Plavcak, 03-6256 (6/6/05)
> INS agents received a tip that Defendant was burning documentary evidence pertinent to an alien smuggling investigation. The agents had seen the documents earlier in the day at a residence where the agents were arresting an individual. Based upon the tip, the agents entered the residence identified by the informant, recovered some of the documents, and arrested Defendant after he fled. Defendant challenged whether exigent circumstances validated the warrantless entry into the residence to seize the documents. The district court found no exigent circumstances and the government appealed.
* Holding: The court held that, in evaluating exigent circumstances, consideration must be given to (1) whether delay in obtaining the warrant would be acceptable under the circumstances, (2) the governmental interest being served versus the privacy interest at stake, and (3) whether the defendant’s actions diminished her privacy interest. First, the court ruled that the fact that the agents saw the documents, combined with the informant’s tip about their destruction, demonstrated that delay in obtaining a warrant was unacceptable. Second, the court held that the government interest was compelling because the documents were relevant to a wide-ranging alien smuggling investigation. Third, the court found that Defendant forfeited any reasonable expectation of privacy by taking the documents to the apartment of a third person and burning them. Accordingly, the court found exigent circumstances and reversed the district court ruling.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. McClain, 04-5887 (12/2/05)
> Police received a call that lights were on at a vacated home and upon investigating found a door ajar and lights on. Suspecting a burglary, officers entered and discovered the beginnings of a marijuana grow operation, but no occupants. The officers subsequently set up surveillance and eventually obtained warrants for several locations at which defendants were growing marijuana. Defendants were charged with conspiracy and marijuana trafficking offenses, and the district court suppressed the evidence seized against them because it was the fruit of the warrantless entry into defendant’s home. The government appealed.
* Holding: When a search is conducted without a warrant, the government may justify the search based upon probable cause and exigent circumstances. The court held that the simple fact of a light being on at a vacated home and a door being ajar did not provide the officers with probable cause to believe that a burglary was in progress. Further, the court held that officers testified that there was no real emergency requiring them to immediately enter the home. Accordingly, the court found that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. The court ultimately decided, however, that the later execution of the search warrants were saved by the good faith exception. (See supra).
• Warrant Exception- Exigent Circumstances
Causey v. Bay City, 05-1142 (3/29/06)
> A neighbor called 911 to report gun shots from the back yard of Causey’s house. The police responded and knocked on Causey’s door, but received no response. The police then talked to the neighbor who confirmed hearing one gun shot, followed a few minutes later by five more gun shots. These events transpired on the evening of New Year’s Eve, and the neighbor reported similar occurrences from Causey’s back yard on the previous 4th of July and New Year’s Eve. The neighbor also said that no one had entered or left the home since the gun shots. Based upon this information, the police entered Causey’s back yard and found shell casings on the ground. The police then learned that a call had been made to 911 earlier in the evening from Causey’s home which was immediately disconnected. A follow-up call stated that a child at the residence accidentally called 911. The neighbor indicated that no children lived at the residence. The police then returned to the front door and continued knocking. Causey and his girlfriend finally came to the window and told the police that they were fine, and did not need assistance. Eventually, however, the police forcibly entered the home. Causey ultimately sued the police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court refused to grant summary judgment to the police, and they appealed.
* Holding: Exigent circumstances may support a warrantless entry into a home when (1) the police are in hot pursuit of a suspect, (2) a suspect is an immediate danger to the officers or the public, or (3) the entry is necessary to prevent destruction of evidence or escape. Under the safety exception, entry is justified if officers reasonably believe that a person is in need of immediate aid. The court held that the safety exception justified both the entry into Causey’s backyard, and the forced entry into his home. Accordingly, the district court ruling was reversed, and summary judgment awarded to the police.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
United States v. Brown, 05-5437 (5/31/06)
> The burglar alarm at defendant’s residence was set off and, while the police were in transit, it was set off again. Upon arrival at the home, the police found no cars in the driveway, and were directed to the basement door by a neighbor. The basement door was ajar, so the police entered to investigate whether a burglary was in progress. Once inside, the police found a second door that was ajar, and upon opening it, discovered defendant’s marijuana grow operation. Defendant was charged with marijuana production and moved in the district court to suppress the evidence found in his home. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the circumstances of the case provided probable cause for the police to believe that a burglary was in progress at defendant’s home, and thus, the entry was justified by exigent circumstances. Additionally, the court held that the police did not exceed the scope of a permissible search by opening the second door inside the basement. Officers are permitted to perform a protective sweep for persons when entering a home based upon exigent circumstances, and the search behind the second door was well within the realm of a permissible protective sweep. Accordingly, the district court’s order was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. Huffman, 05-2058 (8/30/06)
> Officers received a 911 call for shots fired at a residence. Upon arrival, officers found glass broken and bullet holes on the walls consistent with automatic weapon fire. Officers knocked and announced their presence and checked with a neighbor before entering the apartment. The officer who testified in court claimed that he did not know that the shots had been fired about 8 hours earlier. Upon entering the home, officers found defendant with a gun and ammunition. Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the evidence. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court held that exigent circumstances justified the entry into the home. Specifically, the court found that the risk of harm to others warranted the entry. The court noted prior precedent that courts may mutually impute the knowledge of all officers working together or in communication with each other, but nonetheless found that there was no evidence that the officers knew at the time of the entry into the home that the shots had been fired 8 hours earlier. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court ruling.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. Buckmaster, 06-3954 (5/7/07)
> Firefighters responded to defendant’s home and were able to extinguish a fire that was in a second floor bedroom. During the course of the fire fighting efforts, defendant’s waterbed burst and drained water from the second floor to the first floor and basement. As a result, firefighters went to the basement to spread tarps to avoid water damage and to address concerns about electrical sparks from the water seepage. Firefighters also claimed that they went to the basement to check for carbon monoxide levels. While in the basement, firefighters found illegal fireworks and defendant was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of explosives. Defendant moved to suppress the firework evidence and the district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the firefighters’ entry into the basement was justified by exigent circumstances. Specifically, the court found that the concerns regarding water seepage and electrical shorts provided a sufficient exigency under the circumstances to justify the firefighters going into the basement. The court noted that the firefighters’ concerns over the carbon monoxide levels would not have provided a sufficient exigency. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. Purcell, 07-5517 (5/29/08)
> Officers received information that defendant, a prison escapee, was staying at a hotel. Officers were also aware that defendant had a history of manufacturing meth. The officers went to the hotel room and arrested defendant. Officers observed some drug- related paraphernalia in the hotel room. Based on alleged concerns for safety if defendant was, in fact, manufacturing meth at the hotel, the officers searched defendant’s bag and found a gun. Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and he moved to suppress the firearm. The district court granted suppression of the firearm and the government appealed.
* Holding: Exigent circumstances may excuse the failure to obtain a warrant if the circumstances fall into one of four general categories: (1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; (2) imminent destruction of evidence; (3) the need to prevent a suspect’s escape; and (4) a risk of danger to police or others. In the case, the court held that there was not sufficient information, other than defendant’s history, to indicate that a meth lab may be operating out of the hotel room. Thus, an immediate search of small containers, such as defendant’s bag, was unwarranted. Further, the court ruled that the government’s claim that the officers truly were concerned about safety was belied by the fact that the officers twice requested consent to search defendant’s bag, and that the officers stated that they were searching for a gun in the bag. Therefore, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception-Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. Washington, 08-3317 (7/22/09)
> Officers received complaints from a landlord about excessive traffic in and out of an apartment at a multi-unit building, including at least one individual carrying a gun. One night, officers responded to the same building and broke up a fight between two women. Upon their arrest, one of the women indicated that she was living in the apartment in question, and provided the officers consent to search. The officers did not believe the woman, but decided to enter the apartment anyway based on the landlord’s complaints and their knowledge that the tenant of the apartment was in jail. After entering the apartment, the officers discovered defendant in possession of a firearm. Defendant was prosecuted, and moved to suppress the evidence. The district court granted the motion and the government appealed, arguing that exigent circumstances justified the entry into the apartment.
* Holding: The court held that exigent circumstances did not justify the officers’ actions. The court acknowledged that it had in the past recognized a “community caretaker exception” whereby officers were authorized to enter a residence to prevent violence, restore order, or render emergency aid, however, such an exception could not extend to the case at bar. The officers had no evidence of an immediate exigency and, at best, were aware of an ongoing trespass in the apartment. Such information was insufficient to qualify as an exigent circumstance, and the district court ruling was accordingly affirmed.
• Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. Adams, 08-5372 (10/14/09)
> Defendant was in a hotel room at a party, and the renter of the room consented to a search of the room by police for contraband. During the search, officers found defendant’s jacket, lifted it, and noticed that it felt heavy as if it contained a gun. When no one responded to the officers’ inquiry as to the jacket’s owner, they went into the jacket pocket and retrieved a firearm. Defendant was prosecuted and he moved to suppress the gun. The district court denied the motion, defendant was convicted, and he appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the search of the jacket was supported by exigent circumstances. The officers were entitled to pick up the jacket based on the renter’s consent to the search, and the officers’ search of the jacket was justified because they felt what they believed was a gun. The court found that the officers were conducting a drug investigation at a hotel known for high crime activity and were in a small hotel room with several guests in the room. The court ruled that officer safety under the circumstances justified immediately searching the jacket because the officers reasonably suspected that it contained a firearm. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception - Hot Pursuit
Cummings v. City of Akron, 03-3259 (7/22/05)
> The police went to Cummings’ house looking for a suspect on a domestic violence call. Cummings came to the window when the police knocked. The police told him to come to the door, so Cummings cracked the front door and told the police that the suspect for whom they were looking was not present. The police officer slid his foot into the open doorway so that it could not close. The police, at that point, smelled marijuana emanating from the home, and asked Cummings about it. Cummings then immediately tried to close his door, but it would not close due to the officer’s foot. The officers then burst in and arrested Cummings, finding drugs and guns. Cummings subsequently sued the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and the district court granted summary judgment to the city. Cummings appealed.
*Holding: The court found that the police had no warrant or justifiable basis for entering Cummings’ home to arrest him. Specifically, the court found that the police were not in hot pursuit at the time they entered the home. Hot pursuit is only justified where a defendant commits a crime, exposes herself to public view, and then flees to a private dwelling. In this case, the court found that Cummings had not fully exposed himself to public view because he had come to the door at the officers’ insistence and had only cracked the door. Further, the court did not believe that Cummings had committed the crime of assault by closing the door on the officer’s foot because it was not clear that Cummings knew the officer’s foot was in the doorway, and the officer suffered no injury. Thus, the court found the hot pursuit doctrine inapplicable, and ruled that the officers had conducted an unlawful seizure.
• Warrant Exception - Hot Pursuit -
Knock and Announce
U.S. v. Johnson, 05-4277 (5/25/07)
> Defendant was observed by an officer engaged in activity that appeared to be drug trafficking on the front porch of a house. Upon the officers approach, defendant ran inside the home. The officers chased defendant into the house and found him in an bedroom closet. Defendant was subsequently charged with drug trafficking and firearms offenses. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence based upon a violation of the knock-and-announce rule and the district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court declined to decide whether the abrogation of the knock-and- announce rule by the Supreme Court in Hudson v. Michigan (See P.V., Issue #8) applied to an entry of a home where the officers did not have a warrant. Instead, the court held that the officers’ failure to knock and announce was justified by the hot-pursuit doctrine. The court found that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the drug evidence would likely be destroyed if they stopped to knock and announce their presence before chasing defendant into the home. Under the circumstances of the case, knocking would have been futile. Thus, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception-Consent Once Removed
U.S. v. Romero, 05-1512 (6/30/06)
> Defendant invited an undercover officer into his hotel room thinking that he was a drug purchaser. Once inside, the officer realized that a second man was in the hotel room and decided to call for back-up. Other officers burst into the room and arrested defendant. After being charged with meth distribution, defendant moved to suppress the evidence upon the ground that the officers had no authority to enter the hotel room. The district court disagreed, but suppressed the evidence on other grounds. Upon the government’s appeal, defendant cross-appealed.
* Holding: The court found that the officers’ entry into to the hotel room was justified by the doctrine of consent once removed. This doctrine allows officers to enter where an undercover agent or informant (1) entered at the express invitation of someone with authority to consent, (2) the agent or informant established probable cause to effectuate an arrest or search, and (3) immediately summoned help from back-up officers. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception-Search Incident to Arrest
U.S. v. Romero, 05-1512 (6/30/06)
> Officers arrested defendant in a hotel room for narcotics distribution and at the time, defendant was sitting on a hotel bed. Defendant kept staring at the night stand and, after he was cuffed, officers searched the night stand and found meth. Defendant moved to suppress the meth because officers searched without a warrant. The district court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The government appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the search of the night stand was a valid search incident to arrest. Even though defendant was handcuffed when the officers searched the night stand, the search was still valid because it was within defendant’s reach before he was cuffed. Accordingly, the district court ruling was reversed.
•Warrant Exception-Search Incident to Arrest
U.S. v. Williams, 05-5460 (1/9/07)
> Officers went to a boarding house to execute a warrant for defendant for aggravated rape and robbery. The officers were told that defendant lived in a room on the second floor. The officers knocked on the door and defendant answered. During the course of the ensuing interaction, the officers asked defendant if he had any guns in the house. Defendant responded that he had a gun under the mattress of the bed. The officers searched and found the gun, and defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the firearm based upon the Fourth Amendment and the district court granted the motion. The government appealed.
* Holding: When officers conduct a lawful arrest, they may, without a warrant, search a defendant’s person and the area within her immediate control. Under this search incident to arrest exception, an item is subject to search and seizure if it was under defendant’s immediate control at, or near, the time of her arrest. In the case, the court found that the district court made inadequate factual findings about the layout of the room and defendant’s proximity to the mattress and gun in order to assess the search incident to arrest exception. Accordingly, the district court ruling was vacated and the case remanded.
• Search Incident to Arrest
U.S. v. Smith, 07-5377 (12/2/08)
> Defendant sold drugs to an informant during a controlled buy. One month later, the informant notified the officers that defendant was transporting drugs to a certain location. Officers staked out the location, and a second informant identified defendant’s car when he arrived. Upon stopping the car, the drug dog failed to alert, but it did show a “change of demeanor” when sniffing defendant’s crotch. A passenger in the car told the officers that defendant was carrying drugs in his crotch, and the officers observed that defendant’s pants were unzipped and he was “tugging and pulling” in that area. Officers handcuffed defendant, took him to the station, and detained him while they obtained a search warrant. About an hour and a half later, defendant was searched pursuant to the warrant and crack was found in his crotch. Upon his prosecution, defendant moved to suppress the evidence and the district court denied the motion. The court held that the search warrant did not provide probable cause, but that the search was saved by good faith. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the search of defendant was valid as a search incident to arrest. The court found that the tip and the evidence derived at the scene of the stop provided sufficient information for probable cause to arrest. Even though the officers did not state that they were placing defendant under arrest, the fact that they handcuffed him and took him to the station for several hours was sufficient to constitute an arrest. Thus, the search eventually performed constituted a valid search incident to arrest. The court noted that the invalid search warrant did not compromise the lawfulness of the search. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Search Incident to Arrest
U.S. v. Lopez, 07-5768 (6/1/09)
> Defendant was stopped and arrested for reckless driving. After placing defendant in the back of the police car, the officers searched his car and found drugs and a gun. In his subsequent prosecution, defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: Relying on the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Gant (See P.V., Issue #25), the court held that the search of defendant’s car was not justified as a search incident to arrest. The court found that defendant was secured in the back of the police car and thus not in reaching distance of his vehicle, and that there was no reason to think that defendant’s vehicle would contain evidence of the offense of his arrest – reckless driving. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling was reversed.
Warrant Exception-Search Incident to Arrest
U.S. v. Deitz, 05-3410 (8/20/09)
> Defendant was charged with participating in a major drug conspiracy. In the district court, defendant did not challenge the stop and search by state authorities which yielded drugs utilized in the conspiracy prosecution. Defendant was convicted and argued on appeal that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gant (See P.V. Issue #25) precluded the search.
* Holding: The court held that, under Gant,
the search in question would have been invalid because the officers searched defendant’s briefcase in his car based on a traffic stop for failure to show insurance. Nonetheless, the court held that because defendant did not raise the issue in the district court, and the law at the time of the stop in 1998 permitted officers to conduct such a search incident to arrest, the court found no plain error. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception - Protective Sweep
U.S. v. Stover, 05-3562 (1/30/07)
> Officers arrived at defendant’s home, a duplex, to execute an arrest warrant and upon arrival found a car parked in the driveway of the duplex that belonged to a known criminal. The officers entered defendant’s home and arrested him. They then conducted a protective sweep for the other individual and found a marijuana grow operation in a crawlspace in an attached garage and a gun upstairs. Upon being charged in a drug conspiracy, defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: During a search incident to arrest, officers may make a protective sweep of the areas “immediately adjoining” the place of arrest from which an attack could “immediately be launched.” No probable cause or reasonable suspicion is necessary to make such a sweep. Officers may also conduct a more pervasive protective sweep when officers have articulable facts which would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the area to be swept harbors a person posing a danger to others. In the case, the court found that a reasonable officer may have believed that a known criminal was in the home because of the car parked in the driveway to the duplex. Accordingly, even though the crawlspace (where the marijuana was found) and the upstairs area (where the gun was found) were not immediately adjoining the place of defendant’s arrest, the officers had articulable facts to believe there may be another person in the home who posed a danger to them. Thus, the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress was affirmed.
• Warrant Exception - Protective Sweep/
Plain View/Exigent Circumstances
U.S. v. Atchley, 04-6521 (1/23/07)
> Officers arrived at a hotel, based upon an anonymous tip, and established reasonable suspicion that defendant and his three cohorts were involved in manufacturing meth in a hotel room. (See supra). At the time, defendant and his partners were about 20-30 feet outside the room. After securing defendant in handcuffs, the officers entered the open door of the hotel room and performed a protective sweep. They found a gun in plain view and other evidence of meth manufacturing in plain view, as well as in drawers and other hidden areas. Defendant was charged with manufacturing meth and the district court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: A protective sweep of a residence or hotel room is justified if officers have a reasonable fear, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the area may harbor a person who presents a risk to officer safety. Officers must, however, limit the search to areas that in which a person may hide. In the case, the court found that the circumstances warranted a protective sweep of the hotel room. Additionally, the court ruled that, once inside the hotel room, the officers were justified in seizing the gun and evidence of meth manufacturing that were in plain view. Finally, the court held that the evidence taken from drawers and other hidden compartments was lawfully seized under the exigent circumstances exception. In this regard, the court held that the making of meth and the storing of chemicals associated therewith in the hotel room posed an imminent danger to the hotel and its other patrons. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Protective Sweep
U.S. v. Archibald, 08-5703 (12/15/09)
> Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant and determined from a risk assessment of defendant’s arrest history that he was a high risk offender. Officers went to defendant’s home and, after ten minutes of knocking, summoned and arrested defendant at his front door. Officers conducted a “protective sweep” of the residence and located narcotics in the kitchen in plain view. Officers subsequently obtained a search warrant, and found a firearm in the residence. Defendant was prosecuted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and he moved to suppress the evidence based on the warrantless search during the “protective sweep.” The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In conducting a search for other individuals who may cause harm to officers or others, the law permits two types of warrantless protective sweeps. First, officers may look in “closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” This type of search requires no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Second, officers may go “beyond” immediately adjoining areas based on reasonable suspicion that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those at the arrest scene. In the case, the court found that the arrest occurred outside defendant’s front door. Therefore, the “protective sweep” of the kitchen (two rooms over from the front door) was not justified without first establishing reasonable suspicion. Further, the court held that reasonable suspicion did not justify the extended search because the officers lacked any articulable facts to establish a belief that someone other than defendant was in the residence. The court noted that defendant’s prior arrests for violent offenses were irrelevant to the reasonable suspicion inquiry. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling was reversed and the evidence was ordered suppressed.
•Warrant Exception - Inventory Search
U.S. v. Tackett, 06-5182 (5/22/07)
> Defendant was involved in a car accident and received substantial injuries. After the accident, he was in and out of consciousness. As a result, officers conducted an inventory search of defendant’s car and bags. During the search, the officers found illegal silencers and a short barrel rifle. Defendant was subsequently charged and he moved to suppress the weaponry based upon an invalid inventory search. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: Rejecting each of defendant’s arguments, the court found that the inventory search was valid. First, the court held that an inventory search must be pursuant to an established policy, but that no written policy is required. The policy may be proved by testimony. Second, the court held that defendant did not have a greater privacy interest in the bags that outweighed the officers’ interest in the inventory search. A greater privacy interest may be established by a defendant’s actions in asserting an interest in the item to be searched or by the fact that the item is a “repository of personal effects,” such as a purse. Neither interest was established by defendant. Third, the court held that, even if the inventory search violated state law, the remedy was not suppression, but a civil law suit in state court. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Automobile Exception
U.S. v. Smith, 06-2525 (12/26/07)
> Based upon a drug investigation, officers obtained a valid warrant to search defendant’s home and any vehicles on the premises. Defendant’s Pontiac was parked on the premises early in the day, but was moved to the street by the time the search was executed. After searching the home and finding numerous items indicative of drug trafficking, the officers searched defendant’s Pontiac. In the car, officers found large amounts of cocaine and crack. Upon being charged with drug offenses, defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in the Pontiac. The district court concluded that the search of the Pontiac was justified by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and denied the motion. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: Pursuant to the automobile exception, officers may search a car if they have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime. In the case, the court found the following facts supported probable cause: (1) the car was previously seen on the premises; (2) the keys to the car were in defendant’s residence; (3) defendant was a co-owner of the car; (4) defendant was known to transport drugs and sell them out of cars; (5) a large amount of cash and several guns were found in defendant’s residence; (6) there was a history of drug dealing on the premises; (7) residue was found in baggies in trash pulls from the residence; and (8) evidence of a “drug lifestyle” was found in the residence. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Automobile Exception - Drug Dogs
U.S. v. Torres-Ramos, 06-3580 (8/7/08)
> Defendants were passengers of a van stopped for speeding. Based on defendants’ inconsistent answers regarding their travel, officers obtained a dog to perform a drug sniff of the vehicle. The dog alerted, the officers searched the van, and cocaine was found. Defendants’ moved to suppress the evidence based on the unreliability of the drug dog. At the suppression hearing, the government presented testimony that the drug dog was certified under two state and one national standard, and that it had worked with its trainer in over 100 training sessions. Defendant introduced expert testimony that the dog’s training was insufficient in certifying residual odors. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: Ordinarily, a reliable drug dog’s positive alert on a vehicle is sufficient to establish probable cause to search the car. The court held that the drug dog’s reliability was sufficiently proven by the government’s evidence. Accordingly, the district court’s ruling was affirmed.
• Vehicle Inventory Search
U.S. v. Smith, 06-2525 (12/26/07)
> Officers searched defendant’s residence, pursuant to a search warrant, and discovered large sums of cash and numerous items indicative of drug trafficking. Officer’s then searched defendant’s car, which was parked in front of the residence. Defendant was subsequently charged with drug trafficking offenses and moved to suppress evidence found in the car. The district court denied defendant’s motion and concluded that the vehicle was searched pursuant to a valid inventory search procedure. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court first held that the vehicle was properly searched pursuant to the automobile exception. (See supra). Alternatively, the court found that the search was proper pursuant to the inventory exception to the warrant requirement. An inventory search may be conducted if police have lawfully taken custody of a vehicle, and the inventory is conducted pursuant to standard police procedures. The court ruled that the police lawfully seized the car because they had probable cause to believe that it was used in a drug trafficking enterprise, (See supra) and therefore the car was forfeitable under federal law. Further, the court held that the officers conducted the inventory search pursuant to a “standard operating procedure.” In this regard, the court held that the police department need not maintain a written policy regarding inventory searches as long as testimony establishes the existence and contours of the policy. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.