Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer called for a reduction in the city’s stop and frisk policy. Last year the NYPD made 600,000 stops and this year they will probably make 700,000.

Most of the stops are of young African American and Latino men. Over 85 percent of the stops are of non-whites. A young African American or Latino is nine times more likely to be stopped than a white person. Yet only seven percent of these stops result in arrests.

Under Terry v. Ohio in order to stop someone, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity and in order to frisk that person the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is carrying a weapon.

But all too often officers, knowing that they do not have a reasonable suspicion that the young person of color is involved in criminal activity of carrying an illegal weapon stops and frisks the individual any way. Sometimes they do it purely for harassment. Other times they do it because they hope to get lucky and find that the person is either on parole or probation with a search clause allowing the officer to search the individual without a reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. Third world members are often so used to being searched that they consent to what would otherwise be an illegal search. If they consent to the search anything found on them (drugs, guns, etc.) can be used against them in court. And sometimes, to be honest, police write false reports, alleging consent when consent was not given. Knowing that a DA, a judge or a jury is more likely to believe a police officer than a minority youth.

One of the problems with the extraordinary number of searches of minority youth is that they and their families learn not to trust the police. As a result they do not cooperate with officers who are investigating crime and do not reports criminal acts to the police.

Stephen Digiovanni rented a car in Fort Lauderdale, took the autotrain to Washington D. C and drove towards his home in Boston. Driving on I-95 in Maryland, he was stopped by Trooper Chrisotpher Connor for following the car in front of him too closely.

Connor noticed that Digiovanni was somewhat nervous. Furthermore, the car was clean, shirts were hanging in the back without a clothing bag and there was a hygiene bag in the back seat. All of these things he claimed gave him a reasonable suspicion that Digiovanni was a drug trafficker.

While he immediately asked for Digiovanni’s driver’s license and the rental car contract, he did not begin the computer check of the license until over ten minutes after the original stop. During this time he concentrated his investigation on narcotics, asking numerous questions none of which provided answers that indicated a reasonable suspicion of trafficking.

Digiovanni gave consent to a search of the vehicle but was unable to open the trunk. Before Connor searched the interior of the vehicle he wrongly told Digiovanni that he could not revoke his consent. During the search of the interior of the vehicle Connor found 34,091 oxycodone tablets.

Digiovanni’s motion to suppress the pills and some of his statements was granted and the government appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prior to detaining someone an officer must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The detention is limited to the length of time necessary to dispel the officer’s suspicion. The scope of the investigation is limited to investigating the events that lead up to the stop. If an officer determines during the investigation that there is a reasonable suspicion of other crimes the officer may extend the detention. But an officer may not extend the scope of the investigation beyond the original reason for the investigation unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion and that reasonable suspicion is developed during the time the officer needs to carry out a diligent investigation of the original reason for the detention.

There is no question Connor had a reasonable suspicion to stop Digiovanni. The trooper’s vehicle was equipped with with a video camera and it showed Digiovanni following closely behind the car in front of him. But the length and the scope of the detention exceeded what was necessary for a diligent investigation and preparation of a warning ticket. The court found Connor’s belief that the lack of a clothing bag for Digiovanni’s shirts irrelevant to the finding of a reasonable suspicion and bordering on the absurd. Likewise, it found his reliance on the clean car and the presence of the hygiene bag to be “absurd.” While an officer may ask questions unrelated to the original stop if it does not delay the investigation the court found in this case the focus of the detention was not on the traffic citation but rather on a narcotics investigation for which there was no reasonable suspicion and it upheld the district court’s suppression order.

What do we learn from this case. First that offices can post hoc claim that any fact is a reason to support an arrest or search. Unless officers are stopped this will lead to the dissolution of the Fourth Amendment. Second that people talk to much. Digiovanni should have given the officer his driver’s license and rental contract. On further questioning he should have said. I don’t want to talk any more. May I leave?

Criminal defense attorneys, and I suspect district attorneys and judges, have long doubted consent searches. In a consent search the police avoid getting a search warrant by obtaining consent of the person being searched or of the person in possession of the house or car. But these searches are easy to fabricate. There are often no witnesses and its the officer’s word against the defendant’s.

But there is little we can do. The question at trial is not the truth but who can prove their case. We know that the jury is generally more likely to believe a police officer (or five police officers) who testify that our poor 19 year old African American or Latino consented to the search than to believe our client when he or she says they did not consent to the search. This is true even in the senseless situation where the officers find rock cocaine or heroin viewable on the bed or dresser.

Certainly not all consent searches are phoney. People don’t always do wise things.There is no requirement that the police tell a person that they need not consent and people, particularly those from abroad who are not used to the Bill of Rights often consent. Whether the consent is real or not it is often followed by a plea bargain because the police office, who is a professional witness can convince the court and a jury that the defendant consented to the search.

But with the advent of videos things may change. The San Francisco Public Defender’s office has four video tapes taken at the Henry Hotel of police officers entering rooms without consent and later filing police reports in which they state under oath that they received consent to the search. The officers involved are members of the Southern Station plainclothes unit. The District Attorney has already dropped 57 cases as a result of the allegations. An investigation of the unit and its sergeant is occurring. These are serious allegations. Filing a false police report is a misdemeanor and perjury is a felony. If true, these charges are significant violations of people’s Fourth Amendment rights and justly call into question the trustworthiness of numerous other investigations conduct by the unit and by other officers.

The Sixth Circuit found that McCellon Montgomery was capable of freely and voluntarily giving consent, allowing the police to search his property despite being in the hospital under the influence of morphine within hours of being shot in his back by an unknown assailant.

Montgomery was on his back porch. He was shot with birdshot or buckshot by someone hiding in nearby trees. His girlfriend called the police. The police could not find the shooter but they did see marijuana paraphernalia in the kitchen and the smell of marijuana coming from a shed in the back yard.

While they told Montgomery that they were searching for the shooter they were more anxious to find the marijuana in the shed. He gave consent. Police searched the property and found marijuana upstairs in the house and in the shed. He was charged with possession.

While being under the influence of drugs may result in consent being found to be involuntary, the court looked at other factors and found the consent to be voluntary. The nurse as the hospital testified that Montgomery was alert and oriented. Likewise the officers who asked for Montgomery’s consent found him to be lucid.

Despite testimony from his girlfriend and her mother both of whom testified that he had trouble talking the trial court and the appellate court found him to be capable of giving a knowing and voluntary consent.

But how knowing is the consent if you consent to a search for the assailant while the police search for marijuana?

The statistics are shocking. Human Rights Watch reported in 2000 that in seven states 80 to 90 percent of those sent to prison for drug offenses were African American. ¹ In at least fifteen states African Americans were sent to prison from twenty to fifty-seven times as often as white men. In 2000 twenty-six times as many African Americans were sent to prison for drug offenses as in 1983. Likewise the number of Latinos sent to prison increased by 22 times between 1983 and 2000. While the majority of drug users and drug dealers in this country are white over three quarters of those sent to prison are African American and Latino.

In another study published in 2000 white students used cocaine seven times as often as African American students, used crack eight times as often, and used heroin seven times as often. White youth between 12 and 17 are a third more likely to have sold illegal drugs than African American youth. Yet African American Americans are more likely to be prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned.

Among youth who have never been sent to prison, African American are more than six times as likely to be sent to prison for identical crimes. African Americans account for 16 per cent of all youth, 28 per cent of juvenile arrests, 35 per cent of juveniles tried in adult court and 58 per cent of juveniles sent to adult prisons.

Approximately 90 per cent of those sent to prison for drug crimes in Illinois are African American and 55 per cent of the African American men in Chicago have felony records. Nationwide one in three young African American men are either in prison or jail or on parole or probation.

Alexander says that the mass incarceration of the last thirty years serves the same function of racial control that slavery and Jim Crow held for prior generations. While it is no longer acceptable to openly express racist ideas, But the vast difference in drug arrests, prosecutions, and convictions between Whites and minority, despite evidence that Whites violate the law at least as often as African Americans and Latinos can leave no doubt that racism plays an important role in our criminal justice system.

While the laws appear to be colorblind, Alexander points out the tremendous degree of discretion granted to police and district attorneys in deciding which cases to arrest and prosecute. Recently there have been articles in press regarding the large database of citizens in New York City who have been stopped and who have either been frisked or consented to searches, some leading to arrest. The vast majority are African American or Latino. Consent searches or incidents where officers “stop and frisk” citizens happen nationwide. Despite the tremendous invasion of privacy that occurs when officers stop an individual without probable cause and often even without a reasonable suspicion, “consent” searches occur regularly and the police have the discretion to decide who to stop, search and frisk. The vast majority of times it is a young African American male who is stopped and searched. It is this discretion on who to stop and who to search that leads to the extraordinary increase in the number of African Americans who are incarcerated as part of the War on Drugs.

The lifelong effect of these convictions, as pointed out by Alexander is overwhelming. Once convicted of a felony the person can not get public housing or governmental benefits. They are unlikely to be able to get a job or schooling. Furthermore while incarcerated they learn skills to use in future crimes. The inability to get jobs affects their families and future generations.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and 180 month sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in United States v, Kelley

Kelley was convicted after a bench trial in the District Court for the Western District of Missouri of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Two burglars were interviewed by the Greene County Sheriff’s Department. They admitted being involved in a string of burglaries and said that stolen guns could be found at the residence of Karlin Kelley. They called the residence and spoke to Kelley’s sister Tanya. Tanya told the burglars and Sergeant Stanley that the weapons were indeed at the house and she invited the officer to come over and get them. When Stanley and a number of other officers arrived Tanya invited them into the house and Kelley gave them written permission to search the house.

Kelley told the officers that the weapons were in a shed behind the house and he showed them the way to the shed.They seized the weapons. He was interviewed on at least two occasions and read his Miranda rights. He told the officers that the weapons were brought to his house and he agreed to keep them until sometime when they could go hunting without the kids there. Since he was a convicted felon and not allowed to possess guns in his house he put the guns in the shed.

On appeal, two issues were raised, the legality of the search and the denial of Kelley’s motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.

As to the motion to suppress, the court found that Kelley gave valid consent to the search. Kelley argued that his consent was a fruit of Tanya’s permission to enter the house and that she was coerced into doing so by the officer’s statements that he did not want another Waco, that he did not want anyone to get hurt, and that he did not want anyone else to raise her children. But the court found that there was sufficient evidence that the consent was given voluntarily. Tanya testified at the suppression hearing that she would have let the officers in without the threats. Therefore the court found that the permission was voluntary.

Furthermore the court found that there was sufficient evidence that Kelley knowing possesed the firearm. Possession can be either constructive or actual. “[C]onstructive possession requires knowledge of an object, the ability to control it, and the intent to do so.” The court found that there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession. Kelly admitted that he knew the guns were in the shed. In fact he moved them from the house to the shed. Furthermore he planned to go hunting with them.

The lesson for Karlin Kelley, and everyone else, particularly if you are suspected of a crime is not to talk to the police and not to give consent to any search. Anything you say MAY and WILL be used against you.

But, 180 months seem like a long time to spend in prison for holding on to the guns. The court said it reviewed the records and found the sentence to be legal.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in a case where the District court wrongly denied the defendant motion to dismiss on illegal search and seizure grounds.

Two United States marshals went to the Missouri residence of Gary McMullin, looking for Daryl Crowder who was wanted on an Illinois warrant. While Marshall Newlin knocked at the front door, Marshall Davis covered the back door. McMullin consented to Newlin coming in and he told the marshal that he was having coffee with his uncle.

Simultaneously Crowder ran out into the back yard and he was arrested by Davis. Newlin went into the back yard to assist in the arrest and McMullin also went out.

Newlin handcuffed McMullin and physically brought him back into the kitchen. Back in the house, Newlin noticed some ammunition in an ashtray. He then asked whether there were any guns in the residence. McMullin pointed out several weapons and McMullin was arrested for possession of weapons by a convicted felon.

There is no question that Marshal Newlin had consent to enter the residence. But the issue on appeal is whether he had consent for the second entry into the residence.

The core value behind the Fourth Amendment is to protect an individual’s privacy in his/her home. As the court stated

In particular, Fourth Amendment law recognizes the inherent sanctity of a person’s house. The caselaw has consistently recognized that considerably more protection is to be afforded a home than other premises. The leading decisions . . . are each heavily predicated upon the ancient precept that ‘a man’s home is his castle. . . . Therefore, “to search a private place, person, or effect, law enforcement must obtain from a judicial officer a search warrant supported by probable cause.

The court considered two exceptions to the warrant requirement — exigent circumstances and consent. The court found no exigent circumstances requiring the reentry into the residence which would require that “lives are threatened, a suspect’s escape is imminent, or evidence is about to be destroyed.”

The issue of consent is a little more difficult. Does the consent for the initial entry cover the second entry. The court found it did not. While there are cases where courts have found the contrary. Generally in those cases the re-entry occurred shortly after a brief exit to get help or some similar purpose.

The court gives only short consideration to what I consider to be a major issue. At the time of the re-entry McMullin is in handcuffs and he was physically moved into the house. He was under the control of the marshal he may have well felt that he did not have the power to refuse consent. So I doubt any withdrawal of consent or giving of consent would have been in voluntary.

In any case the court came to the right decision and reversed the conviction.

Often small errors end up in people being arrested and convicted of major crimes. I have seen this many times over the years. But the point was brought home by two cases listed on FourthAmendment.com.

First a little bit about the Fourth Amendment. It states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But the courts, particularly under Chief Justices, Burger, Reinquist, and Roberts have found many “reasonable” exception to the search warrant rule. The two cases that I will discuss today come under the “search pursuant to a legal arrest” and “consent” exceptions.

In a Washington state case, State v. Kirwin a passenger in a car driven by Kirwin at 2:00 a.m. in Olympia threw a beer can out the car window. A police officer saw the can being thrown out the window and arrested the passenger for littering. After the passenger was in the police car the officer search that area of the car that had been in the reach of the passenger. Finding methamphetamine, the officer arrested Kirwin for possession of methamphetamine and he was convicted.

A Georgia case also found in FourthAmendment.com is based upon the search pursuant to a legal arrest and consent exceptions to the search warrant rule. In Sapp v. State In Sapp an informant gave a detailed description of the vehicle and the route Sapp was going to take to deliver methamphetamine. Police officers set up surveillance and followed him. As he followed the expected route he crossed the road’s center line twice. The police stopped him for the traffic violations. He admitted that there was an illegal substance in the truck and he consented to the officers searching the vehicle. Prior to the search, an officer saw a drug pipe on the front seat. Based upon his consent to the search and upon the officer’s seeing the pipe on the front seat the court found the search to be legal on both consent and pursuant to a legal arrest grounds.

In the Washington case the search was based on a passenger’s throwing a beer can out the window and in the Georgia case on a driver crossing the center line. Both cases resulted in methamphetamine convictions.