{"id":7681,"date":"2013-05-19T10:58:04","date_gmt":"2012-09-08T11:35:27","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-09-08T11:35:27","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7681","title":{"rendered":"CA6: SW for safe that was a target of burglars and left behind was reasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s 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<\/a>, 498 Fed. Appx. 524 (6th Cir. 2012).* I\u2019m not buying any of this:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Comment: <\/strong>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.] <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7681","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7681"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7681\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}