CA7: Automobile search was permissible of a car driven in an internet predator sting

An automobile search was permissible of a car driven in an internet predator sting. The defendant did not have condoms, discussed in the chat sessions, on his person, but it was not determinative that they were not on his person. United States v. Zahursky, 580 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2009):

We conclude, however, that the record establishes that probable cause to search the vehicle existed even before the discovery that Zahursky didn’t have any condoms or lubricant on his person. First, the agents knew that Zahursky was the man they wanted. He arrived at Starbucks, the designated meeting place, in the make and color of car that he had described in his chats with Shelly. He was wearing the clothing he had told Shelly he would be wearing, and the agents could observe that his physical appearance fit the one he had described to Shelly. The agents also knew from the internet chats and email messages with Shelly that Zahursky planned to bring condoms and lubricant with him. Thus, they had probable cause, based on Zahursky’s own statements, to believe that Zahursky had these items, which would be evidence of a crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), with him when he met Shelly on June 21.

Furthermore, it was reasonable to believe that Zahursky would have left these items in his car instead of taking them into Starbucks. He surely wasn’t going to use the condoms and lubricant inside Starbucks. Zahursky and Shelly had planned only to meet at the Starbucks before going to Lindsey’s sister’s dorm room where they planned to engage in sexual activity.

Identity evidence in an illegal entry case, including fingerprints, are not suppressible under a Fourth Amendment violation, if there was one. United States v. Aguila-Perez, 344 Fed. Appx. 521 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished), following United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. May 4, 2009) (No. 08-10195).*

Arresting men on defendant’s porch justified a protective sweep. Exigency also permitted a search for a child inside. United States v. Minniefield, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77807 (W.D. La. August 13, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.