E.D.Mich.: That police were rude during the search isn’t a ground to exclude

Alleged police misconduct in how the search was conducted because they were rude and cavalier in handling the evidence isn’t a ground to suppress. United States v. Samonek, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88269 (E.D. Mich. June 30, 2014):

Defendant’s claim under Ground Five is that law enforcement officials engaged in misconduct during the search of his home. He asserts that the officers made rude comments to his fiancée, and were cavalier in their handling of the evidence, and because of that mishandling, the photographs of the scene misrepresent the proximity of the weapons and drugs found. Presumably, he complains that his attorney should have moved for the hearing he now demands to determine the extent of the alleged misconduct. Defendant’s claim fails in three respects.

First, the proximity of the weapons and drugs found within the home is irrelevant to the crimes for which Defendant pleaded guilty: distribution of cocaine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The testimony of officers who witnessed Defendant selling cocaine to the CI provided a factual basis for his guilty plea for distribution of cocaine. The discovery by those officers of firearms in his home provided a factual basis for his guilty plea for possession of a firearm. Whether or not the photographs would falsely lead one to believe the weapons and drugs were found closer together than they really were is irrelevant.

Second, the suppression of evidence is not a remedy for the described police [mis]conduct. If Defendant’s claims are true, the officers’ behavior may deserve criticism. However, the determinative question is whether or not a “sufficient causal relationship” existed between the alleged police misconduct and the discovery of the drugs and firearms. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 602, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (quoting United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 72 n.3, 118 S. Ct. 992, 140 L. Ed. 2d 191 (1998)). Here, Defendant does not even allege misconduct in the execution of the search warrant or in the discovery of the items in his home, but rather the handling of those items by the officers after their discovery and their language and behavior while concluding the search. Searching for illegal weapons and drugs in an unfamiliar environment, facing the potential of unseen dangers, is rough business; rough behavior and rough language may sometimes emerge. Suppression of evidence under these conditions is not appropriate.

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Police misconduct. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.