Post details: CA6: SW for safe that was a target of burglars and left behind was reasonable
09/08/12
CA6: SW for safe that was a target of burglars and left behind was reasonable
Defendant’s house was the subject of a burglary, and an unopened safe was abandoned in his yard when the burglars fled. The police wanted the safe ostensibly to fingerprint it [safes can seldom be fingerprinted] but then opened to see what the burglars wanted, and defendant refused. The police then got a search warrant for the safe, and it was issued with probable cause [of what?]. Inside were firearms, and defendant was a convicted felon. United States v. Saddler, 498 Fed. Appx. 524 (6th Cir. 2012).* I’m not buying any of this:
Having concluded that the officers' fear that evidence would be lost or destroyed was objectively reasonable, we now weigh the government's interest being served by the intrusion against the individual interest protected by the warrant requirement. See Plavack, 411 F.3d at 664. The government's interest in solving crimes is significant, of course, and the evidence seized was materially important to the investigation of the burglary. See Wilson v. Collins, 517 F.3d 421, 427 (6th Cir. 2008). Because the officers seized the safe but did not search it until they had a search warrant, the seizure affected only Saddler's possessory interest in the safe and did not implicate a privacy interest. See Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 810, 104 S. Ct. 3380, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1984). Notably, other circuits have considered this lesser interference as a factor when upholding warrantless seizures. See United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Licta, 761 F.2d 537, 541 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover, unlike the seizure of luggage in an airport, no liberty interest was impinged by the seizure of the safe i.e., it did not lead to the effective detention of Saddler. See Place, 462 U.S. at 708-09. The seizure was also of limited duration; the officers received a warrant to search the safe 22 hours later.
In sum, considering the brief nature of the intrusion into Saddler's possessory interest, the fragility of the evidence, as well as the government's significant interest in solving crime, we conclude that the government's interest outweighed the individual interests at issue. Because it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that leaving the safe risked the imminent destruction of evidence, and the balance of the interests justified the government's need to seize without a warrant, we uphold the district court's determination that exigent circumstances existed. That conclusion, in conjunction with probable cause to believe that the safe contained evidence related to the investigation of a crime, justified the warrantless seizure.
Comment: The bottom line is really fundamental and a refrain often seen here: If you are committing a crime and another one is committed against you, don't call the police to investigate, for God's sake. How stupid! Yeah, Mr. Saddler is mad that somebody tried to steal his safe. But he's a convicted felon, the target of the burglars was his cache of guns, and he should have sucked it up, carried the safe back in the house, and reinforced the point of entry or bought a 1500 lb safe that couldn't be carried out. How often have we seen cases here or in our practices that involve the guy with drugs or guns in the house who assaults his girlfriend or wife and she calls the police and then consents? Or the guy with drugs in the house and a burglar alarm to invite the police to investigate a burglary when he's not home? [I've personally seen five of those.]
If you are known to have contraband in your house, you're a target of a burglary. Get used to it. You made that life choice, and tradeoffs are required. It never stops.
Pingbacks:
No Pingbacks for this post yet...
FourthAmendment.com
Notes on Use
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
Search
by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact / About
www.johnwesleyhall.com
www.LawofCriminalDefense.com
@JohnWesleyHall
Online since Feb. 24, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links
Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court (Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
First Circuit
Second Circuit
Third Circuit
Fourth
Circuit
Fifth Circuit
Sixth
Circuit
Seventh
Circuit
Eighth
Circuit
Ninth Circuit
Tenth Circuit
Eleventh
Circuit
D.C.
Circuit
Military Courts: C.A.A.F.,
Army, AF,
N-M, CG
State courts
Google Scholar
Advanced Google Scholar
Google
search tips
LexisWeb
LII State Appellate
Courts
LexisONE
free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To
search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $
Most recent SCOTUS cases:
2013-14 Term:
Fernandez v. California, granted May 20 (ScotusBlog)
2012-13 Term: 2010-11 Term: General (many free): Congressional Research Service: "If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." "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." "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." Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment. "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." "The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property." "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." "The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth." "A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable." "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." “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.” “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.” "You can't always get what you want /
But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." "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." “You know, most men would get discouraged by
now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
"There is never enough time, unless you are serving it."
Maryland
v. King, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4165, 2013 WL 2371466 (June 3, 2013) (ScotusBlog)
Missouri
v. McNeeley, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (Apr. 17, 2013) (ScotusBlog)
Bailey
v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (Feb. 19, 2013) (ScotusBlog)
Florida
v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 185 L. Ed. 2d 61 (Feb. 19, 2013) (ScotusBlog)
Florida
v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (Mar. 26, 2013) (ScotusBlog)
2011-12 Term:
Ryburn
v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other
blog)
Florence
v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
United
States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
Messerschmidt
v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
Kentucky
v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Camreta
v. Greene, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Ashcroft
v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
Davis
v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
2009-10 Term:
Michigan
v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam)
(ScotusBlog)
City
of Ontario v. Quon, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog)
2008-09 Term:
Herring
v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Pearson
v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Arizona
v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Arizona
v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Safford
Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174
L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
Research Links:
Supreme Court:
SCOTUSBlog
S. Ct.
Docket
Solicitor General's
site
SCOTUSreport
Briefs
online (but no amicus briefs)
Curiae (Yale
Law)
Oyez
Project (NWU)
"On the Docket"–Medill
S.Ct.
Monitor: Law.com
S.Ct.
Com't'ry: Law.com
LexisWeb
Google Scholar | Google
LexisOne
Legal Website Directory
Crimelynx
Lexis.com
$
Lexis.com
(criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
Findlaw.com
Findlaw.com (4th
Amd)
Westlaw.com
$
F.R.Crim.P.
41
www.fd.org
FBI
Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
DEA
Agents Manual (2002) (download)
DOJ
Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)
Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (2012)
Overview
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
Outline
of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
Federal
Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
Federal
Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)
ACLU on privacy
Privacy
Foundation
Electronic Privacy
Information Center
Criminal
Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
Section 1983 Blog
—Me
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
—Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
—Pepé Le Pew
—Malcolm Forbes
"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)
Archives
- June 2013 (94)
- May 2013 (117)
- April 2013 (139)
- March 2013 (122)
- February 2013 (127)
- January 2013 (137)
- December 2012 (137)
- November 2012 (124)
- October 2012 (128)
- September 2012 (127)
- August 2012 (140)
- July 2012 (138)
- More...
Misc
XML Feeds
What is RSS?
Who's Online?
- fourth
- gaygsojf
- upsesiabuible
- Guest Users: 146
powered by
