Grand Junction: DA: Search central in State Trooper’s trial by Paul Shockley:

District Attorney Pete Hautzinger carried the unhinged front door that once stood at the Redlands home — splintered at an end and black shoe prints from police officers’ kicks elsewhere — into a courtroom today as the prosecution told jurors that the Fourth Amendment to U.S. Constitution was front and center in the trial of Colorado State Patrol trooper Ivan “Gene” Lawyer, who’s charged in the shooting death of 31-year-old Jason Kemp.

He told them to get a search warrant, prosecutors said.

“Jason Kemp died demanding his constitutional rights be honored,” Deputy District Attorney Todd Hildebrandt said during opening statements in Lawyer’s trial. “And the only force he (Kemp) used was trying to prevent them from coming inside his home.”

Kemp would have been justified that day in defending his home with deadly force as allowed under the doctrine of Colorado’s Make My Day law, the prosecutor told jurors.

“That force can be applied against a police officer,” Hildebrandt said.

In a search warrant for alleged stolen heavy equipment, automatic weapons were not “immediately apparent” for plain view purposes. They usually aren’t, especially without nexus being shown. United States v. Lamb, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49155 (S.D. Ohio April 6, 2012):

The Government has, however, failed the third prong of the plain view analysis because it cannot demonstrate that the illegality of the automatic guns was immediately apparent. "Because the plain view doctrine supplants the need for a particularized warrant, the 'immediately apparent' requirement is necessary to prevent officers from using the plain view doctrine as a means to extend a particularized search authorized by the Fourth Amendment principles into an unlawful exploratory search." Garcia, 496 F.3d at 510.

Under the "immediately apparent" prong, "multiple factors may be taken into account, none of which are necessary, but each of which are instructive." Carmack, 426 F. App'x. at 382. Courts should consider: (1) the nexus between the seized object and the items particularized in the warrant; (2) whether the intrinsic nature or appearance of the object gives probable cause to believe it is associated with criminal activity; (3) whether the officer, at the time of the discovery of the object and with the facts then available, can determine probable cause of the object's incriminating nature; and; (4) whether the officer can recognize the incriminating nature of the object as the result of his instantaneous sensory perception, as opposed to further investigation. Id.; Garcia, 496 F.3d at 510. "Probable cause does not require knowledge that the evidence is contraband." Carmack, 426 F. App'x at 382. Instead, it requires that the available facts would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that it may be contraband. Id.

Here, the first factor weighs in favor of suppression. There was no nexus between the guns seized and the documents or computer accessories authorized in the warrant. Nothing in the warrant or the affidavit suggests guns were used in the alleged theft.3 To the extent the officers were aware of the shooting that occurred on the property earlier that morning, they were likely also aware the shooting involved a handgun, not an automatic machine gun. Furthermore, there was no testimony that the guns were seized in connection with the earlier shooting; they were seized because they were found to be automatic.

3 Some district courts in the Sixth Circuit have found the incriminating nature of a machine gun was immediately apparent for purposes of the plain view exception where the gun had a connection to the alleged crime. See United States v. Jefferson, 717 F. Supp. 2d 790, 804 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (finding incriminating nature of AK-47 immediately apparent where police were investigating a homicide involving a firearm); United States v. Case, No. 2:07-CR-111, 2008 WL 4865967, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) (finding that if the plain view exception were applied, the incriminating nature of a machine gun is immediately apparent where there was a nexus between guns and narcotics crimes). Here, there was no nexus between the alleged crime and the guns in this case, and therefore, within the context of the search, the illegal nature of the guns was not immediately apparent.

Under the second factor, neither the intrinsic nature nor the appearance of the guns gave probable cause to believe they were illegal automatic weapons. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held the incriminating nature of certain weapons and accessories, such as sawed-off shotguns and silencers, is immediately apparent. See, e.g., Carmack, 426 F. App'x at 383 (citing cases establishing the immediately apparent incriminating nature of sawed-off shotguns); United States v. Poulos, 895 F.2d 1113, 1122 (6th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Horton, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) ("[S]ilencers, like sawed-off shotguns, are not 'intrinsically innocent' objects and their possession is a serious crime except under 'extraordinary circumstances.'").

There is, however, a distinction between silencers and sawed-off shotguns on the one hand, and automatic weapons on the other. The Sixth Circuit has held that the incriminating nature of automatic weapons is not immediately apparent. United States v. Tatman, 397 F. App'x. 152, 175-77 (6th Cir. 2010) (finding incriminating nature of automatic weapons parts kit not immediately apparent); United States v. Szymkowiak, 727 F.2d 95, 99 (6th Cir. 1984) (suppressing assault rifle where the officers could not tell by looking at the rifle whether it was automatic); United States v. Gray, 484 F.2d 352, 355 (6th Cir. 1973) (finding stolen rifles did not fall under the plain view exception). Therefore, the illegality of an automatic gun is not immediately apparent, and factor two also weighs in favor of suppression.

Plaintiff claimed that the Department of Defense stole his intellectual property, and he filed suit alleging, inter alia, a Fourth Amendment claim, which was rejected because there was no search and seizure. “Because there are elaborate remedial systems already set up for wrongful appropriations of intellectual property, a Fourth Amendment constitutional remedy is not available for Plaintiffs' claims.” Pearlstein v. United States Dept. of Defense, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49235 (D. Ariz. April 9, 2012).

Where the officers have probable cause to believe there are drugs in the car, defendant’s arrest on a felony drug warrant justified a search of the car under the automobile exception, and Gant was inapplicable. United States v. Fox, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48966 (W.D. Mo. February 23, 2012).*

Hot pursuit of fleeing felon from a hand-to-hand drug transaction into an apartment justified entry into the apartment. Also, raising a new argument during the closing argument of the suppression hearing was inadequate to raise the issue because the government didn’t get to respond. United States v. Thompson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49472 (N.D. Tex. April 9, 2012):

The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit recognize that the hot pursuit of a fleeing felon is an exigency justifying a warrantless search and arrest. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 43 (1976) ("[A] suspect may not defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place ... by the expedient of escaping to a private place."); Payne v. City of Olive Branch, 130 Fed. Appx. 656, 662 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("'Hot pursuit' of a suspect is recognized as an exigency justifying a warrantless search.") (citing Santana, 427 U.S. at 41-43 & n.3).

In addition, the warrantless search was justified by the need to preserve evidence. "[T]he need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence has long been recognized as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search." Kentucky v. King, __ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing cases). As explained above, the officers had background knowledge that drugs were being sold out of apartments located at the Complex. They had just witnessed Thompson engage in what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction, and Thompson fled to his apartment and locked the doors after the officers unexpectedly arrived on the scene, observed the transaction as it was occurring, and commanded him to stop when he fled. Thompson was aware that the officers were pursuing him. If he had been selling drugs from his apartment and was still in possession of illegal narcotics, he could have destroyed any evidence of drugs during the time it would have taken the officers to obtain a warrant. ...

Attachment of an unsworn police report to a search warrant affidavit can support probable cause. United States v. Schubert, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49270 (E.D. Wis. April 9, 2012):

In State v. Wegrzyn, [751 S.W. 2d 796 (Mo.App. 1988)] the Missouri Court of Appeals held that a deputy sheriff's notarized application for warrant which was based entirely on document signed by police officer that was not dated, not verified by oath, and not properly notarized was sufficient. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Bass, 24 Mass. App. 972, 512 N.E.2d 519 (1987), an affidavit for a search warrant, properly verified, incorporated the contents of attached documents. The attachments were not in affidavit form. They were not sworn to and they contained no jurat. The trial court held that those deficiencies invalidated the warrant. The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed that holding and upheld the warrant and the search made pursuant to it. The court held that the attached documents were properly incorporated into the affidavit, itself in proper form, and that it was of no moment that the attachments were not sworn to or contained no jurat. See also People v. Campbell, 678 P.2d 1035, 1040 (Colo. App. 1983) ("However, documents attached to and incorporated in an affidavit by reference need not be sworn to separately and may thus fall within the four corners of the affidavit.").

As a general matter, federal courts, too, have held that attached documents that are properly incorporated into an affidavit can be considered in determining whether probable cause exists and that it is of no moment that the attachments were not sworn to or contained no jurat. See, generally, United States v. McCoy, 781 F.2d 168, 172 (10th Cir. 1985); United States v. Berisford, 750 F.2d 57, 58 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v. One Olivetti Electric 10-Key Adding Machine, 406 F.2d 1167, 1168 (5th Cir. 1969). But in most cases, the attachment is not the sole source of information needed to establish probable cause, or the affiant is the author of or has direct knowledge of the facts set forth in the attachment. Here, there is no showing that Investigator Johnson had any direct knowledge of the facts set forth in the attached report. Yet, it is not uncommon for law enforcement officers to obtain a search warrant based on an affidavit that expressly includes hearsay that is not itself given under oath or affirmation. Police affidavits made in support of search warrant applications generally recount information they obtain from citizen witnesses, other police witnesses, or even unidentified informants. There is no requirement that the affiant have direct knowledge of all of the facts essential to support a finding of probable cause. Nor must the probable cause determination be based only on evidence that would be admissible at trial. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 173 (1949); see also U.S. v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 107 (1965) (holding that finding of probable cause may rest upon evidence which is not legally competent in a criminal trial).

Flight + reasonable suspicion = probable cause. United States v. Williams, 475 Fed. Appx. 36, 2012 FED App. 0375N (6th Cir. 2012):

Once Officer Edwards approached Williams and informed him that he was a police officer, Williams fled. Williams continued to run even after being chased and being told to stop multiple times. The officers' reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause once Williams fled. See Dotson, 49 F.3d at 230-31; McCoy, 155 F. App'x at 201-02; Bowden, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 19153, at *9.

Defendant’s “newly discovered evidence” for attempting to reopen the suppression hearing was cumulative at best and would not change the court’s conclusion. United States v. Hawkins, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48851 (D. Colo. April 5, 2012).*

Bloomberg: Strip-Search Case Reflects Death of American Privacy By Noah Feldman:

The short answer is that Kennedy couldn’t find a violation of dignity for the petitioner because almost everyone committed to a jail or prison gets similar treatment. (Some states have banned the practice after minor arrests.) Every arrest, even for major offenses, is supposed to take place on the basis of suspicion, not proven guilt. Everyone in jail is equally presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial -- or until he or she admits guilt in a plea bargain. To find that all of these people are having their most basic rights violated every day would have been too disruptive to the basic practices of American criminal justice.