Legal Beat
Legal Beat...
inside the home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. However, this presumption may be overcome in some narrow and well-delineated exceptions. In the Supreme Court case, Maryland v. Buie, 449 U.S. 325 (1990), it held that two of the exceptions when authorities are entitled to search is: (1) an "incident to the arrest . . . as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, . . . closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched" and (2) the officers are entitled to perform a further "protective sweep," beyond the immediately adjoining areas, when they have "articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from which those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene."
The Court of Appeals determined that the officers had a reasonable basis to believe that there could be other individuals in the residence who might resort to violence when incited by their confederate' arrest during the second encounter. Further, the Court of Appeals found it relevant that presence of seven vehicles near the residence at 1 a.m. and on the property even though the Joneses claimed no one else was in the residence. In addition, a recent surveillance of the Joneses' residence revealed that known drug users were frequenting the house, some who were known to carry firearms.
Thus, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts made by law officers, and construed in the light most favorable to the government, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the protective sweep in this case was constitutional. Therefore, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the suppression motions. The case is U.S. v. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit holds that Search of Groin-area was Appropriate
Seattle, WA. - Officer Matt Bruch received a call from an airline noting a suspicious passenger, Keith Russell. Bruch asked Russell for consent to search his person. Russell gave consent and Bruch conducted a search, ultimately discovering 700 Oxycodone pills in Russell's underwear. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Bruch’s search to be lawful.
Officer Bruch of the Port of Seattle Police was assigned to a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) task force. On August 12, 2010 in Seattle, Washington, Bruch received a phone call from an Alaska Airlines employee who reported that Keith Russell had made a last-minute purchase of a one-way ticket to Anchorage, Alaska, in cash. Russell did not check any bags and was alone. This behavior aroused suspicion that Russell was a drug courier.
Bruch and another officer proceeded to the departure gate to investigate. En route to the terminal, Bruch learned that Russell had prior drug and firearms-related convictions and had previously been implicated in an Alaskan drug investigation.
Bruch arrived at the terminal and approached Russell. Bruch presented his badge and explained that he was a law enforcement officer investigating narcotics. Bruch further added that Russell was not being detained and that he was free to leave before asking for permission to search Russell's bag and person. Russell consented.
Bruch handed Russell's bag to the assisting officer, who found no narcotics. Bruch asked for consent a second time to search Bruch's body. Bruch agreed and spread his legs and arms for a pat down. Bruch began with a pat down of Russell's shins, knees, thighs, and up to the groin area. When Bruch reached the groin area he "lifted up to feel . . . something hard and unnatural." Bruch then placed Russell under arrest. The entire search prior to arrest was conducted outside of Russell"s clothes. Subsequently, it was discovered that Russell had hidden 700 Oxycodone pills in his underwear.
Before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Russell moved to suppress the evidence against him. However, the district court found that "it was reasonable for the officer to assume that all the areas where narcotics could be secreted could be touched" outside the clothing.
Russell then appealed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who upheld the district court's decision to deny Russell's suppression motion. The court of appeals reviewed whether Russell gave consent voluntarily and whether the scope of Bruch's pat down was reasonable in analyzing Russell's appeal.
First, the court of appeals found that Russell had voluntarily given consent to search his person. Russell was not in custody, and officers approached him. The officers did not draw or even display their firearms. Although officers did not actually inform Russell that he could refuse consent, which the court of appeals would have viewed as preferable as an instruction of rights, Bruch told Russell he was not detained and was free to leave, which was sufficiently instructive to emphasize the voluntary nature
Speaking on condition of anonymity because of ongoing inquiries, one dealer described the pace of the sales as "unprecedented ... It had never happened like that before."
Still another said that because of the volume, "our sales people would go behind the door and have a direct dial
