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 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.

In Michigan v. Summers the Supreme Court held that a search warrant for a residence allows officers to detain those in the residence during the search and that this right extended to a man leaving the residence as officers entered. In United States v. Bailey the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, last week, extended the permissible detention to an individual the officers saw drive away from the residence in order to allow them to follow and stop the individual. The officers then brought the individual back to the residence and detained him until the search was over.

With a search warrant for a basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive in Wyandanch, New York officers arrived at the residence. They saw two men, one of them Chunon Bailey leave the unit and drive away. They followed the vehicle, stopped it and brought the men back to the residence. Bailey was detained and he was arrested after guns and drugs were found in the residence.

In Summers the Supreme Court provided three reasons to justify the detention of someone leaving a residence: (1) “preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; (2) “minimizing the risk of harm to the officers”; and (3) facilitating “the orderly completion of the search.” In a footnote the Second Circuit says that the first and second criteria apply. But it gives no facts to support this view. In another footnote it states that the police officers testified that the reason they didn’t immediately detain Bailey was that they were afraid that by doing so they would alert anyone else in the house to the police presence and a dangerous situation may result.

It is one thing to follow the Supreme Court’s criteria. It is another to make a blanket holding. The Second Circuit held, “that Summers authorizes law enforcement to detain the occupant of premises subject to a valid search warrant when that person is seen leaving those premises and the detention is effected as soon as reasonably practicable.”

This issue may come before the Supreme Court. The Circuit Courts are divided. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, like the Second Circuit, upheld detentions of people after they left the scene. The Eighth and the Tenth Circuits ruled to the contrary. They held that once a person left the residence the Summers criteria are no longer applicable. If the person leaves the scene without knowing that a surveilance is in progress then the officers are not in danger. The Second Circuit’s response is that the officers are required to make a difficult decision: either to detain Bailey outside the residence and possibly notify those inside that the police are present or to to let Bailey, who they call a “person of interest to leave without being detained. While the search warrant indicates that a judge found probable cause to believe that someone in the residence may have committed a crime at the time of the detention there was no individualized suspicion, as required by Terry that Bailey committed a crime and he should not have been detained. When you detain someone a mile away from the house, return they to the house and require them to wait until the search is over it is no longer the minimal intrusion found by the Supreme Court in Summers.

If “the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment ” police may enter a residence without getting a search warrant. This is called the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment. For example police may enter a residence if they have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed.

Some courts have ruled that the exigent circumstances rule does not apply when the police create the exigent circumstances. In Kentucky v, King police observed a crack cocaine sale outside of an apartment house. The culprits ran into the building. They were chased by officers. The officers knew that they went into one of two apartments. Out of one of the apartments the officers could smell a strong odor of marijuana, ¹ The officer knocked loudly at the door that they smelled the marijuana coming from. No one answered the door. ² The officers heard people moving around in the apartment and they thought that the residents were attempting to destroy the marijuana. ³ The officers yelled “police” and when no one answered the door knocked it down. ⁴

The defense argued, and the Kentucky Supreme Court agreed that by knocking loudly on the door the officers created the exigency and then used it to enter the apartment. According to the United States Supreme Court the essence of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness and any search that is reasonable is acceptable. ⁵

While there are a number of justifications for the “police-created exigency” doctrine my favorite is that it allows any officer to create an exigency at any time. As Justice Ginsburg said in dissent:

The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment ’s warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Court’s reduction of the Fourth Amendment ’s force.

All the officer has to do is say that he/she hears people moving around in the residence or hears a toilet flushing in the residence and they can claim that they thought that evidence was being destroyed. Then they kick the door down or walk in if its not locked. ⁶

The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to take up the Fourth Amendment issue of Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Various courts have ruled on the constitutionality of the use of GPS without getting a warrant and rulings have come down on both sides of the issue,

The Ninth and the Seventh Circuits have ruled it constitutional while the D. C. Circuit found it unconstitutional. Courts in New York, Massachusetts, Washington and Delaware have found it unconstitutional while courts in Ohio and Virginia have approved of the practice.

The Justice Department is challenging a D. C. Circuit opinion that overturned the conviction of Antoine Jones on cocaine trafficking charges after GPS evidence played a mayor role in his conviction. The DOJ argues that since law enforcement officers could have followed Jones as he traveled on the public roads he could not have had a legitimate expectation of privacy. The Fourth Amendment only applies to individuals who have an expectation of privacy that is recognized by society.

However his attorneys argue that using a GPS device on Jones’ Jeep Cherokee for over a month and reporting his whereabouts every seven seconds was a tremendous invasion of his privacy and is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

The Courts that have upheld warrantless GPS searches have cited the 1983 Supreme Court decision, United States v. Knotts in which the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man in a methamphetamine case after the wholesaler of necessary chemicals placed a beeper in a barrel of chemicals. The barrel was placed in a codefendant’s vehicle and followed by agents to the suspect’s residence.

Knotts has been cited by the courts in upholding warrantless GPS decisions. Most of the Courts have said that if it was constitutional to follow a car with a beeper, it is constitutional to keep track of a vehicle with a GPS deviced placed under the car’s carriage while it is either parked on the street or in the defendant’s driveway.

But while the lower courts do not have the power to reconsider Knotts the Supreme Court does. It is a decision that may have had some validity 30 years ago but with the technological advances in the last 30 years allowing greater and greater invasions into citizen’s privacy it is time for the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision.

In Gant v, Arizona the Supreme Court ruled that without probable cause to search a vehicle an automobile could not be searched in a search incident to a legal arrest once police removed the occupants from the car.

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit upheld the search of a vehicle and of folded up money found in the car based upon probable cause. Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy Jeffey Dokie stopped a car driven by Sandra Vera for having an expired registration, There were two passengers in the car, Michael Smith and Shawn Ewing. Smith was on parole. After finding out that Smith was on parole Doke noticed folded up currency in the weatherstripping of the right front door. Ewing was acting nervous and he talked fast indicating that he was on drugs. Doke thought that the attempt to hide the money was indicative of a drug courier. Doke decided to search the car and he seized and unfolded the currency. Upon examination he determined that the money was counterfeit. Ewing admitted to manufacturing the money.

After he was arrested he moved to suppress the money. Specifically he wanted to suppress the officer’s observations after he unfolded the money. The court found that while he did not have a privacy interest in the vehicle and therefore could not move to suppress evidence found in the car, he did have a privacy interest in the money and therefore had standing to move to suppress the money. He argued that while the officer may have had probable cause to search the vehicle, the unfolding of the money was a separate search requiring a separate finding of probable cause.

However the court found that Ewing’s nervousness, the attempt to hide the money, and Ewing’s apparent drug intoxication gave the officer probable cause to search the vehicle. Since the money was the subject of the search, probable cause to search the vehicle included probable cause to unfold the money and search it. A separate finding of probable cause was not needed and therefore the trial court was correct in refusing to suppress the evidence.

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.

Friday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the conviction Reginald Ellison, Sr. on various drug charges. The only question on appeal was the sufficiency of the nexus between the residence that was the subject of a search warrant and crime.

Neither a search warrant or the affidavit supporting a search warrant must name an individual suspected of committing a crime. The warrant need only name a place to be searched. The affidavit must show probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found at the place. In order to show probable cause, inter alia, it must show a nexus between the place to be searched and a crime. It is certainly possible that a search warrant is issued and a search is performed where a significant amount of contraband is seized but no one is found in possession of the contraband and no one is arrested.

In Ellison an informant ¹ tells a government agent that he/she saw “Short” ² exit the house, make a sale of drugs to “Red,” and return to the house.

This was an easy case for both the trial court and the Sixth Circuit. Certainly if “Short” came out the residence and returned to the residence after the sale it is likely that more drugs will be found in the residence. It is also likely that the money “Short” received for the sale of the drugs will be found in the residence. This creates a sufficient nexus between the residence and a crime to obtain a search warrant.

Prior to obtaining the search warrant the police determined that the utilities were in Ellison’s name. Presumably once in the residence they found evidence that Ellison was involved in the crime and arrested him. ³