The Supreme Court, Monday, denied the government’s petition to reinstate the drug conviction of Antoine Jones after it was reversed by the DC Circuit. Jones was convicted after government agents attached a GPS monitor to the underside of the automobile that he drove for four weeks obtaining 2000 pages of data showing every place he went.

While the decision was unanimous the court was divided as to the reason to deny the government’s petition. Five justices ¹ signed onto Justice Scalia’s majority opinion holding that the placement of the monitor violated Jones’ right under common law trespass laws. Four justices ² joined Justice Alito’s decision holding that the government action violated Jones’ reasonable expectation of privacy.

In recent years most Fourth Amendment decisions have been based on the concurring opinion by Justice Harlan in Katz v. United States in which he stated that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectations of privacy.” But according to Scalia Katz’s privacy analysis did not replace the preceding interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that held that it protected the property rights of individuals. Katz merely supplemented the long standing property rights interpretation. Since the government committed a trespass to place the monitor on the car and therefore violated Jones’ property rights it violated the Fourth Amendment.

While the long awaited opinions did not break new ground, they pointed to the need to adopt Fourth Amendment law to the protect privacy rights from invasion by governmental electronic devices. Among the questions left for future cases is what would the result have been if the government used electronic devices to follow Jones for four weeks without having committed a trespass? It may have still violated his Fourth Amendment rights by violating his expectation of privacy.

As I pointed out in a prior post the 1983 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Knotts. appeared to stand in the way of resolving electronic search questions. In Knotts government agents placed a beeper into a five gallon container of chemicals at a retail chemical facility. The store then sold the chemicals used in manufacturing methamphetamine to Armstrong, a co-conspirator of Knotts and followed the vehicle with the beeper to Knott’s residence. In that case the Supreme Court found that the government had not performed a search or seizure and therefore there was no Fourth Amendment violation. Scalia avoided dealing with Knox by pointing out that since the beeper was placed in the container before it belonged to Armstrong there was no trespass on his property. In fact it was placed in the container with the support of the company selling the chemicals and therefore there was not a trespass.

On the evening of September 22, 2009 Jamie Shetler called the Pomona, California police department to report that her father, Scott, was using and manufacturing methamphetamine in his house. The police immediately went to the house. The garage attached to the residence was open and according to the officers a chemical odor emanated from the garage. The rear portion of the garage was partitioned off. In order to determine if anyone was behind the partition or whether methamphetamine was in the process of being manufactured the officers entered the garage. While they saw a few items associated with methamphetamine they did not see anyone and nothing was being manufactured.

The officers left the garage and knocked on the front door. Scott Shetler came out a side door. He was handcuffed and detained outside the house. Officers entered the house and began searching it. Guns and items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine were found.

Half way through the search they obtained a waiver from Shetler’s girl friend. At no time did the officers obtain a search warrant.

In the early hours of the 23rd Scott Shettler gave a statement in which he confessed and he was arrested. The next day the DEA took him to the house, found another gun and took a statement about the gun. The trial court suppressed all of the physical evidence except that which was found in the original search of the garage but it allowed the various statements to come into evidence. On appeal admission of the statements was contested.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the government failed to carry its burden to show that Shetler’s statements were not the product of the illegal searches. A statement is considered the fruit of an illegal search if the officers confront the defendant with evidence illegally taken or if the defendant’s statement is a result of his knowledge of the government’s possession of items illegally taken. There was no evidence at the hearing that Shetler was not confronted with illegally seized items and as he was detained he watched the government seize numerous items which the court later decided to be seized illegally.

Not only were the statements the result of the illegally seizure, they were not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal acts. “Three factors are relevant in determining whether Shetler’s statements were sufficiently attenuated from the underlying illegality to be admissible: (1) the temporal proximity of the search to the confession; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” The Ninth Circuit found that the searches were sufficiently close to the statements as to not be overly attenuated. The initial confession occurred outside Shetler’s house during the search. While the second statement was made a couple days later there were no intervening circumstances that would have influenced Shetler to confess as “to dissipate the taint.” The officers were clearly looking for evidence without a search warrant. They waited until the search was half over before getting consent. There lack of good faith is apparent.

The evidence at the trial that Shetler maintained the residence for a primary or principle use was the manufacture, distribution, or use of methamphetamine was weak and the statements were a major part of the government’s case. Therefore the conviction was reversed and the case remanded to the District Court.

The New York State Police Community Narcotics Enforcement Team (“CNET”) executed a search warrant on the residence of Richard Szuba. When the officers found cocaine, Szuba decided to snitch. Szuba told the officers that he received his drugs from Dean A. Steppello. He told the officers that when he wanted some cocaine he called Steppellos and said, “[a]re you good?” Then he would leave his garage door open and Steppello would deliver four ounces. At the request of the officers Szuba called Steppelo. The officers only heard Szuba’s side of the conversation. But he said, “you good, this afternoon, 20 minutes.” Officers surveilling Steppello’s residence saw him drive up to the house, enter it, leave again and drive to the area of Szuba’s residence. But since the garage was closed ¹ he parked in the driveway and called Szuba eleven times. ² Steppello was then arrested.

In a search incident to his arrest cocaine was found on him and a search of his residence pursuant to a search warrant found more cocaine.

He was charged in the United States District Court with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine. ³ He moved to suppress both the cocaine that was found on him and that which was found in his residence as well as certain statements that he made after he was arrested. He claimed that there was not probable cause to arrest him. If there was not probable cause to arrest him the cocaine found on him could not have been used to get the search warrant for his house, The District Court granted his motion and the government appealed.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the appeal. It held, contrary to the District Court’s decision that the mere lack of a history of reliability does not mean that the informant’s information must be discounted. As evidence of reliability it pointed out that the information was given in order to prevent him from being arrested, that it was given face to face to the officer, that Szuba was a participant in the crime, and that it was corroborated by physical evidence. As corroborating evidence it pointed to Szuba’s correct prediction of what would happen after the phone call, his correct description of Steppello’s vehicle and residence, as well as the telephone records verifying the calls from Steppello to Szuba.

While I do not accept the court’s finding that lack of a history of giving reliable information is unnecessary, I do believe that there is enough corroborating information for a finding of probable cause. I have represented many drug dealers who have attempted to pull one over on officers by giving incorrect information about the source of the drugs or about the offense. To find reliability without a history of cooperation is foolish without corroboration. But here there is plenty of corroboration.

Since there is probable cause for the arrest there is also probable cause for the search warrant for the residence and to use the statements made pursuant to the arrest.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Obie Lee Powell for possession of crack cocaine due to an illegal pat search of Powell. Powell was a back seat passenger in a car driven by Jermaine Mitchell. The car was pulled over by the police due to a burned out headlight.

The officers did a license check on Powell, it came up suspended and the officer learned that Powell had a prior conviction for armed robbery. Based on this information the officers ordered Powell to get out of the car and pat searched him. ¹ A gun was found in a backpack near Powell’s seat in the car. He was arrested after the gun was found but he was not convicted of possessing the gun. During a search incident to the arrest crack cocaine was found on Powell and this was the basis for the conviction.

The issue on appeal was whether the officers’ pat search was justified by officer safety. During the pat search the gun was found. This justified his arrest which lead to the cocaine being found.

The government argued that the pat search was legitimate based upon Powell’s past record and the fact that he lied about the status of his license. But the court applying Terry found that ” that a reasonably prudent officer in these circumstances would not be warranted in the suspicion that Powell was armed and dangerous on the
night of the traffic stop.” Without evidence that Powell was armed and dangerous the officers had no right to pat search Powell and the the arrest as well as the search incident to the arrest were fruits of the illegal pat search. The cocaine had to be suppressed and the conviction vacated.

A California court had the opportunity last week to explore some of the questions left open by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Gant..

Vernon Evan was driving his car in Los Angeles. An officer pulled him over for weaving and ordered him to get out of his car. He refused. After several attempts to get Evans to leave the vehicle an officer broke his window and maced the inside of the vehicle. After getting Evan out of the car police searched the vehicle finding $65.00 and several clean baggies. ¹ After arresting him for interfering with an officer and impounding the vehicle, the officers discovered that during a prior arrest of Evans a gun was found in the air vent. The officers went to the impound yard and found cocaine in the air vent.

In Gant the Supreme Court ruled that a search of an automobile incident to an arrest can only occur 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.” The court held that under Gant neither the roadside search which occurred while the defendant was out of the car and under arrest nor the impound yard search was permissible and it reversed the cocaine related convictions. Obviously during neither of the searches was Evans within reaching distance of the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The second Gant prong is a little more difficult since the Supreme Court did not did not define what it meant by the phrase “reasonable to believe” that the vehicle contained evidence of the offense. But the court found that there was nothing innate in the charge of interfering with an officer or in the facts of the case that would read an officer to have a “reasonable suspicion” that physical evidence of the crime would be found. Therefore it reversed the trial court’s denial of Evans’ search motion and remanded the case to the trial court.

The Supreme Court, Tuesday, heard the case of Antoine Jones, the Washington D. C. nightclub owner who was sentenced to life in prison for cocaine related charges after police placed a GPS device on his vehicle, without a search warrant and tracked him for a month.

There is something basically wrong with the government being able to track citizens wherever they go and whatever they do. As Justice Breyer said, it “sounds like ‘1984.’ ” Breyer and Sotomeyer pointed out that if the government is right, they can put a tracking device on every car in country and track everyone.

While the majority of the court seemed to agree that the United State government violated the Fourth Amendment, the problem is U.S. v. Knotts. In Knotts, a 1983 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment was not violated when the police used a beeper to track a vehicle carrying chemicals from the retailer to the residence where a methamphetamine lab was located.

As a general rule the Supreme Court is reluctant to reverse prior decisions. It prefers to differentiate the prior decision by a difference in the facts between the two cases. But that will be difficult here. The difference between a beeper and the more modern GPS is probably immaterial. It has been suggested that the court will find that it was okay to track the vehicle in Knotts since that was for only one day while it is not okay in Jones because it was for a month. But where do you draw the line. Is two days okay? Is 29 days not okay? Is 15 days permissible but not 16 days? It may just be time to admit they made a mistake and reverse the finding in Knotts.

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.

There was an arrest warrant for Torrance Hill. His address was unknown but the authorities knew the address of his girl friend. However they felt that it was unlikely that he would be at her home, knowing that the police were looking for him and knowing that they would be looking for him at his girl friend’s townhouse. They went to the house, anyway, to question the girl friend. They knocked on the door. No one answered. They could here voices inside but they were unsure whether people were inside or it was the television. They called his girl friend, Ms Alvarez ¹ She was at work and she said the only person who could be in the residence was her sister.

The police opened the door anyway and found Hill in the house. They searched the residence and found marijuana and a grinder. An hour later Alvarez came home and consented to a full surch of the residence. They found a two-shot revolver, an empty holster, a bulletproof vest, scales, ammunition, marijuana, and crack cocaine. Hill was indicted and moved to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds.

The strongest case for Fourth Amendment protection occurs when authorities search a residence. One’s house is one’s castle and an unconsented entry intp the house violates the Fourth Amendment. Officers can enter with a arrest warrant but only if the wanted person lives in the residence and the police have reason to believe that the person is present. Once they arrest a person in a residence they may search the area near the person as a search incident to arrest. They can also search the residence if the resident consents to the search. In this case the entry into the residence was illegal. The officers did not have consent at the time of the entry and they did not have reason to believe that Hill was in the residence. In fact an officer testified that there was an eighty per cent chance that Hill was not in the residence.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine whether or not the consent given by Alvarez was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry or whether it was tainted by the entry. The court instructed the lower court to look at three factors: (1) the time between the Fourth Amendment violation and the consent, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and (3) the flagrancy of the official misconduct. After reviewing these factors the court can determine whether Alvarez’s consent was voluntary or whether it was forced on her by the illegal entry into her house.

In 1984 the California legislature approved DNA testing for those convicted of serious felonies. In 1998 the legislature expanded the number of crimes for which a conviction would result in DNA testing. In 2004 California voters approved Proposition 69, the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence Protection Act which required the immediate testing of all people arrested on a felony.

Last week the District Court of Appeals found the Act to violate the Fourth Amendment in that it does not required individualized suspicion or probable cause approved by a judge. Individualized suspicion is needed prior to any search of the body for a criminal investigation.

But the State argued that the DNA testing was not being done for a criminal investigation. Rather the purpose of the testing was for identification purposes. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. To determine if a search is reasonable the courts use the totality of the circumstances test under which they balance the needs of government against the privacy interest of the individual.

But in balancing the needs the court found that in as far at the State’s needs for identification versus the individual’s privacy rights, the individual wins. A fingerprint analysis using the FBI’s computers in Washington D. C. can be done in ten minutes while it takes on an average 31 days to develop a DNA profile. The electoral advertising for Proposition 69 all emphasized DNA’s use as an investigative tool, not its use for identification. The state’s regulations for the taking of DNA all require that identification of the arrestee occur prior to submitting the DNA sample. In fact they require that fingerprints be submitted along with the DNA sample.

On the other hand while it is easy to take a DNA sample to do so is quite invasive. The state gains a tremendous amount of information about the individual besides the identification of the individual. It may be possible using the DNA sample to determine what illnesses the person has and perhaps even the propensity of the person to commit violent acts. None of this is necessary for identification but it invades the privacy rights of the person without a prior court finding of probable cause. As a result of the balancing test the Court found the DNA testing of individuals arrested for a felony, but for whom there has been no finding of probable cause unconstitutional.

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?