Officers procured multiple warrants for defendant’s apartment, a cooler, and another vehicle, but never his car. Then they saw a gun in the car and decided to inventory. The government also claimed probable cause and a valid reason for seizure, but the court didn’t buy it. Their “post hoc” claim of probable cause failed because there wasn’t to begin with. United States v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224378 (E.D. La. Dec. 18, 2023):
While the Court is satisfied that the DEA followed a valid policy on inventory searches, it is not persuaded that the search in this case falls within the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. The critical issue here is whether the vehicle was properly taken into custody in the first place. To be seized pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act’s forfeiture provisions, if there is no warrant, the government must show (1) probable cause to believe the property would be subject to forfeiture, in this case, that the vehicle in question was used to transport narcotics, and (2) that either the seizure was done pursuant to a lawful arrest or search, or that a warrant exception applied. See 18 U.S.C.§ 981(b)(2)(B). The Court understands the language that the seizure be done “pursuant to a lawful search or arrest,” as used in § 981(b)(2)(B)(i), to implicate the community caretaking function, such as when an individual is lawfully arrested upon being pulled over and the vehicle must be taken into custody for community caretaking purposes. The government has argued only probable cause.
Here, law enforcement had never witnessed the Mercedes transport narcotics, it was parked legally a couple of blocks away, and it was unmoving, unoccupied, and legally parked. Law enforcement had the foresight to call for a second warrant for the cooler Johnson was carrying while arrested and had the time to wait for this warrant to be issued, but they did not seek a warrant for Johnson’s car. The agent testified at the suppression hearing that Johnson was a big fish, they had been investigating him for some time, and they had heard he drove a Mercedes and/or a Range Rover. They saw him arrive at the apartment earlier that morning in the Mercedes, and then tailed him in the car. The Court cannot help but wonder why law enforcement did not seek a warrant for his car under these circumstances.
Based on the briefings, the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing, and the applicable law, the Court cannot reasonably conclude that this was a valid seizure and therefore the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement does not apply. Sometimes, too many cooks in the kitchen leads to small oversights, such as the request for a warrant for one item but not another. That does not permit a post hoc finding of probable cause when none existed at the time of the arrest. There was no probable cause to find that the vehicle was used to transport narcotics and therefore subject to forfeiture. Law enforcement could have obtained another warrant for the car, as they did the cooler, but they did not. The fruits of such seizure, in this instance the firearm, must therefore be suppressed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Gregory Johnson’s Motion to Suppress.
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)