The Mansfield Amendment, 22 U.S.C. § 2291(c), prohibiting U.S. officers from directing arrests in foreign countries, was not violated where the defendant was arrested in El Savador by police there and flown back to the United States in a DEA airplane. United States v. Bourdet, 477 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. D.C. 2007):
Defendants contend that their statements must be suppressed because they were the fruit of an arrest that violated the Mansfield Amendment, Pub. L. No. 94-329, § 504(b), 90 Stat. 729, 764 (1976) (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 2291(c) (2000)). The Mansfield Amendment provides that “No officer or employee of the United States may directly effect an arrest in any foreign country as part of any foreign police action with respect to narcotics control efforts, notwithstanding any other provision of law.” § 2291(c)(1). As the D.C. Circuit has emphasized, the Mansfield Amendment only prohibits United States officers from “directly effect[ing]” an arrest. United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436,443 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Defendants’ arrests were not directly effected by United States officers; rather, the Salvador-an police exercised complete control and authority over the direct police action in which defendants were taken into custody. The Mansfield Amendment simply does not apply.
Defendants concede that defendants’ arrests were carried out by Salvador-an officials, but they argue that the Mansfield Amendment was nonetheless violated in two ways. First, they contend that United States officers directly effected the arrest of defendants when they took custody of defendants at the airport in El Salvador. Defendants acknowledge that the logical result of their argument would require any transfer of custody to occur either in the United States or in international territory. Regardless, their argument is foreclosed by Mejia, in which the defendants were arrested in Panama by Panamanian authorities and then transferred into DEA custody at an airport in Panama City. 448 F.3d at 439. The court of appeals held that the defendants’ “claim that the Mansfield Amendment was violated fails on its face” because “the Panamanian authorities conducted the direct police action during which the defendants made a transition from liberty to custody.” Id. at 443 (internal quotation marks omitted). It can therefore be inferred that the later transfer of the Mejia defendants from Panamanian to American custody did not implicate the Amendment. Accordingly, the post-arrest transfers of defendants in this case from Salvadoran to American custody did not constitute “directly effect[ed] arrest[s]” under the terms of the Mansfield Amendment.
The LA SWAT team entered defendant’s house to execute an arrest warrant. After defendant was handcuffed and in custody, he consented to a search of the house, and the trial judge’s ruling it was by consent was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Gonzalez, 222 Fed. Appx. 238 (4th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and he volunteered a search of his vehicle. The officer lawfully could do a patdown of the defendant before the search of the vehicle. United States v. Oriach, 222 Fed. Appx. 312 (4th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).
Defendant’s claim that he was not “officially” on probation was unavailing because he was on probation and there was reasonable suspicion for a probation search under Knights. United States v. Albertson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17628 (M.D. Pa. March 14, 2007):
We find Albertson’s argument, that he was not “officially” on probation as of September 18, 2005, unavailing. We so conclude because this Court is intimately familiar with Pennsylvania’s probation system. Defendant is interposing an argument that assumes he must sign some type of receipt to be “officially” on probation. We suspect he knows better. In this case, Defendant was clearly informed, both in open court and by a written order of the Court of Common Pleas of Columbia County that issued on July 14, 2003, that his 24 month term of probation would begin upon his release from the incarceration term to which he was also sentenced that day. Because of his own parole violation, Defendant was not released from that prison term until his maximum date of December 7, 2004, and, consequently, his probation term commenced on said date.
Moreover, Defendant’s violation of parole and resulting re-incarceration render unpersuasive Defendant’s argument that he was not familiar with the terms and conditions surrounding probation and parole. Defendant would have been apprised thereof at the time of his parole, and, indeed, his violation of such terms and conditions provided practical experience with the application thereof. As a result, the contention that Defendant was unfamiliar with Pennsylvania’s probation system and his responsibilities thereunder is again simply not credible.
Having concluded that Defendant was on probation at the time his residence was searched on September 18, 2005, we turn to consideration of whether the probation officers that conducted the search had reasonable suspicion to do so. As Albertson accurately notes, in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, courts “consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the ‘officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.'” United States v. Williams, 417 F.3d 373, 376 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 122 S. Ct. 744, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002)). The Pennsylvania statute governing probation officers’ searches also outlines eight different factors that may be taken into account. See 61 P.S. § 331.27b(d)(6). Those relevant to our determination include: “[i]nformation provided by others,” “[t]he activities of the offender,” “[t]he experience of the officers with the offender,” “[t]he prior criminal and supervisory history of the offender.”
