U.S. v. PONCE-ALDONA, 2009 WL 2450282 (11th Cir. August 12, 2009)
The defendant conditionally pled guilty to drug charges but on appeal argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the initial stop did not fall under the administrative search exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court examined the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and found that the Georgia statute’s regulatory scheme as a whole, including the incorporated federal regulations, satisfied the third prong of the Burger test) for compatibility with the Fourth Amendment (The defendant did not raise any challenges to the first or second prong). The Georgia statue provided notice to owners that their vehicles would be searched on a regular basis, and that the time, place, and scope of the inspections placed proper restraints upon the inspecting officer’s discretion.
Posts Tagged ‘Fourth Amendment’
State’s regulation for safety inspections of commercial motor vehicles was adequate substitute for warrant under Fourth Amendment.
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009The defendant was not entitled to Franks hearing.
Monday, July 27th, 2009U.S. v. Valencia-Trujillo, 2009 WL 1929157 (11th Cir. July 7, 2009)
The defendant was convicted of several drug and money laundering crimes after being extradicted to the U.S. from Colombia in 2002. He was sentenced to 480 months imprisonment and to forfeit $110 million. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to actions against foreign citizens on foreign soil. The Supreme Court has explained that a violation of the fourth Amendment is ‘fully accomplished’ at the time of an unreasonable governmental intrusion.
The case did not warrant reversal.
The Court of Appeals stated that the defendant points out that he put into evidence handwritten notes identifying the owners of the cocaine aboard both vessels and that he was not one of them. Yet other evidence existed from which the jury could find defendant responsible for the cocaine aboard those vessels. And, again, there were three other predicate acts anyway.
Arrest was supported by probable cause, therefore irrelevant for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Monday, July 27th, 2009U.S. v. Goings, 2009 WL 1927455 (11th Cir. July 7, 2009)
The defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. He then appealed, challenging denial of his motion to suppress and argued that the District Court erred by denying his suppression motion only on the ground that the arrest leading to the discovery of the evidence violated Florida law. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the district court correctly found that, under the Supreme Court’s Moore decision, it was irrelevant for purposes of the Fourth Amendment whether a defendant’s arrest violated state law, so long as it was supported by probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion and not probable cause enough for warrantless search of probationer’s home.
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009U.S. v. Carter, (case no. 08-00031) (N.D. Fla. April 27, 2009)
The defendant was on probation for felony battery and possession of cocaine when his probation officer suspected he was again involved in criminal conduct. The probation officer planned a warrantless search of the defendant’s townhome during which evidence of crack cocaine and a firearm were discovered, leading to his prosecution. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was not supported by probable cause. The district court denied the motion; and the defendant pled guilty to the two charges but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
The defendant argued that his fourth amendment right was violated because the search was not predicated on probable cause. Specifically, he argued that being a probationer does not subject him to searches based on reasonable suspicion alone. Rather, there must be some condition of probation that reduces a probationer’s expectation of privacy in the object of the search.
The Eleventh Circuit applied a balancing test set forth in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587 (2001) which determines the reasonableness of a search “by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300, 199 S. Ct. 1297, 1300 (1999)). The court balanced the defendant’s privacy interest against the government’s interest and held that the defendant’s privacy interest was reduced by the condition of his probation which required him to submit to home visits by a probation officer. The court stated that, on the other hand, the government has a high interest in preventing drug and violence-related crimes-especially since this defendant has a history of drug and violence-related felonies. Therefore, the court concluded that search of the defendant’s home was permissible.
