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 ‘Search and Seizure’
State’s regulation for safety inspections of commercial motor vehicles was adequate substitute for warrant under Fourth Amendment.
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009Reasonable 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.
Speedy trial delay warranted a dismissal without prejudice and not with prejudice.
Friday, April 24th, 2009U.S. v. KNIGHT, 562 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. March 31, 2009)
After the car Mr. Knight was riding in as a passenger was pulled over, a police officer saw him place a gun on the floor boards. He was arrested on state charges. While still state custody he was indicted by a federal grand jury on September 29, 2005, for possession of the firearm by a convicted felon. A federal detainer was lodged against him to hold him in the event he made bond. He was visited by ATF officers in the county jail who advised him of the pending investigation. Knight made some incriminating statements and did not ask for an attorney. He was transferred to federal custody where he pled not guilty. The district court granted a speedy trial claim but dismissed without prejudice. As to the appeal from the district court’s order dismissing “without prejudice” the Court applied the factors and found the district court did not abuse its discretions.
The seizure of evidence was found reasonable based on initial stop of the driver which led to the resulting seizure from the defendant.
The Court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress evidence seized in the stop. It found the initial stop of the car was valid because the driver was seen without a seat belt on. The officer had probable cause to stop the car, and the officer was entitled to ask the driver to step out the car. He had reasonable suspicion to pat down the driver and the officer smelled marijuana and alcohol.
The denial of the motion to suppress statements.
The Court found that the prior invocation of rights in the state case did not apply to the federal case. Statements made to the ATF were admissible.
The district court committed clear error for failing to reduce Knight’s sentence for time spent in state custody for obstruction of justice.
Where a defendant has a prior offense that is relevant to the instant offense and resulted in an increase in the offense level of the instant offense, the sentencing guidelines provide that the sentence include a credit for a period served in state custody for the obstruction case. The government conceded the error because the conduct that was used to enhance his federal sentence was related to the state conviction and the BOP would not give credit for that time.
