Search of a NYC DOC employee’s belongings for drug soaked paper after passing the metal detector at Riker’s Island was reasonable either under special needs or because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and it’s not even a Fourth Amendment search. She’s indicted federally for allegedly being bribed to bring drugs in, and the IG of the DOC and FBI were investigating. United States v. Lewis, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162713 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2021):
The Court holds that even assuming arguendo that the examination constituted a Fourth Amendment search (which it did not, for reasons described below), the DOI agents’ inspection of Lewis’ purse was reasonable under the special needs doctrine. Lewis argues that the scope of the DOI agents’ search of her purse was unreasonable, because there was “nothing inherently suspicious about colored folders and blank pieces of paper,” and “nothing about these items suggested that they were contraband, thus requiring a more intrusive search of Ms. Lewis’ purse.” Id. at 6. But the Government identifies the specific workplace policy barring DOC employees from “enter[ing] into any transaction with an inmate” and from “carry[ing], convey[ing], or mak[ing] accessible to an inmate within a facility/command any intoxicant, opiate, narcotic, or other contraband article.” See ECF 14-2 at 7. The Government further presents records it obtained before the search reflecting Lewis’ account activity on the electronic payment platform CashApp, along with Rikers Island visitor logs. See ECF 14-6, 14-7, 14-8, 14-9. These records provide ample reason to believe that Lewis was smuggling contraband to inmates in exchange for bribes in violation of these workplace policies. The scope was also of “appropriate scope,” Leventhal, 266 F.3d at 75, given the multifarious means by which contraband is smuggled into jails (not to mention the DOI agents’ asserted awareness of how Lewis was smuggling drugs into the facility). See, e.g., United States v. Romain, 2015 WL 5920020, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015) (describing how the defendant, a corrections officer, would “obtain … marijuana, package it in the fingers of latex gloves, and smuggle it into Rikers”).
Further still, there is an independent ground for denial of this prong of Lewis’ Motion: As the Government forcefully argues, the DOI agents’ examination of Lewis’ purse did not even amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment. “A Fourth Amendment ‘search’ … does not occur unless the search invades an object or area where one has a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable.” United States v. Hayes, 551 F.3d 138, 143 (2d Cir. 2008). It is well established that employees at correctional institutions have a “significantly” diminished expectation of privacy, both as a function of the unique context of the “nature of their place of employment” (here, a jail) and because of “the notice provided by the Department in [its] rule book at the time of hire.” Sec. & L. Enf’t Emps., Dist. Council 82, Am. Fed’n of State, Cty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO by Clay v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 202 (2d Cir. 1984). The Government has supplied the Court with the applicable DOC policy on the “Control of and Search for Contraband” as an exhibit to the Walker Affidavit. ECF 14-1. It provides, inter alia, that “[a]ll civilian and uniformed personnel, regardless of title or rank, shall be subject to search and inspection, including all carried possessions (e.g., packages, bags, etc.)” upon entry to the jail. Id. at 5. The policy also provides that “[r]egardless of their contents or point of origin, all … bags … are subject to a complete and thorough search when entering or departing a departmental facility.” Id. at 6. These DOC policies clearly notified Lewis that she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in any object she took into OBCC. Therefore, the DOI agents’ inspection of her purse was not a Fourth Amendment search.
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
Search and seizure law consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers,
is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which
reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that
those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being
judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting
out crime."
—Johnson
v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)