2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-7-2010 

# U S A v . Andr e H e nr y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3888

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" U SA v . Andr e H e nr y " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2098. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2098NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 08- 3888 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v . AN DR E H EN RY , Appe l l ant On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e E astern D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 2- 06- c r - 00033- 001) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n . Jan E . D ub o is Subm itte d P ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a )

Nove m be r 6, 2009 BE FO RE : SCIRICA , Chief Judg e, JORD AN and C OWEN , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d: J anuar

y 7, 2010) OP INI ON COW EN, Ci r c ui t

Judge An dre Henry

appeal s from

the jud gm ent of con vict ion andse ntence ente re d b y the2

U n i t e dS t at e s D i s tr i c t

C o urt f o r th e E a s t e rn D i s tr i c t

o f P e n n s yl v an i a . W e w i l l a f f i rm. I. Henry was c on vict ed and sente nced in Penn sylvania st at e c ou rt

fo r r ob bery

at gu np oint. On A pril 25 , 200 3, he was r el ea se d o n p ar ole. He si gn ed the s tand ar d Pe nns yl vani aform

gi vi ng par ol e a ge nt s c ons e nt t o s e ar c h hi s pe r s on, pr ope rty , and resid en ce w ith o u t a w arran t. He nr y wa s s ub s e qu e nt l y

arr e s t e d b y

s t at e par ol e a ge nt s onOc t ob e r 21 , 20 03 . On Jan u ary 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , a f

ed eral g ran dj u ry

retu rn eda tw en ty -eig h t-co u n t in d ictm en t ag ain st hi m and s i x othe r

de fe ndant s . The gr and jury s ubs e que nt l y

r e t urne d as upe r s e di ng in d ictm en t w ith th e sam e n u m b er o f co u n ts o n O cto b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . H e w as ch arg edw ith var i ous fi r e arm s offe ns e s , Hobbs Ac t r obbe ry , arm e d bank r obbe ry , c ar ja c ki ng, and soli ci tati on to comm it

m urder. Henry

file d n um er ou s c ou nsel ed and p ro se pretri al
m ot i ons , and s pe c i fi c a l l y s ought t o s uppr e s s e vi de nc e obt a i ne d i n c onne c t i on wi th the s e ar c h of hi s aut om obi l e and hi s r e s i de nc e on Oc t obe r 21, 2003. Aft e r an e vi de nt i ary

he ar i ng, the Di s tr i c t

Court de ni e d the s uppr e s s i on m ot i ons on F eb ru ary 2 , 2 0 0 7 . It p ro v id edits reaso n in g f o r d o in g so in a th o ro u g h m em o ran du m . Refrai ning from

deci ding the quest ion o f w hether re as on able suspic ion w as even r e qui r e d gi ve n hi s wr i tt e n c ons e nt t o warr ant - l e s s s e ar c he s a s ac ondi t i on of par ol e , the Distri ct Co urt c on cl ud ed that

ther e was re as on able suspic ion to con du ct the two se ar ches at issu e in th is case. It f

u rth er f o u n dth at H en ry ’s sup p ressio n testim o n y w as p ro p erlyT he D i s t r i ct C our t pos s es s ed s ubj ect m at t er j ur i s di ct i on over t hi s cr i m i nal m at t er 1 p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r evi ew a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct i n connec t i on w i t h a s uppr es s i on m ot i on under a cl ear er r or s t andar d of r evi ew . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 413 F. 3d 347, 351 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 280 F. 3d 318, 336 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I n t ur n, t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he l aw t o t hes e fa ct s i s s ubj ect t o pl enar y r evi ew . See, e. g. Per ez, 280 F. 3d at 336. 3 s tr i c ke n be c aus e he ha d i nvoke d hi s Fi fth Am e ndm e nt r i ght s on c r os s - e xam i nat i on. The Di s tr i c t Court fi na l l y not e d that

“ the r e i s unc ontr ove rt e d t e s t i m ony that de fe ndant consente d to the se ar ch of his vehic le im

m ediate ly prior t o the October 21, 20 03 se ar ch o f h is v eh icle, an dth at d ef

en d an t’s m o th er co n sen tedto th e search o f h er h o u se i mm e di at e l y

pr i or t o the Oc t obe r

21, 2003 s e ar c h of de fe ndant ’ s r e s i de nc e . ” ( 82a( c i t i ng Jan . 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 H earin g T ran scrip t at 5 5 , 1 0 6 ).) On February

22 , 200 7, the jury

fo un d H enry

gu il ty on twenty -s even coun ts (a si ng le coun t ( po ss es si on of bo dy ar m or) was dism is se d b y

the gov er

nm ent) . The Distri ct C o u rt sub sequ en tly

sen ten cedh im

to a to tal term

o f im p riso n m en t o f

9 8 2 m o n th s. T h is a ppe a l fol l owe d. II . We agre e with the Distri ct Co urt that the parole agents cl ea rl y po ss es se d re as on able suspic ion to con du ct the s earc hes, and w e there fo re need no t dec ide whether the Sup re m e Cou rt ’s deci si on in Un it ed Stat es v. Sam son, 54 7 U .S. 843 (200 6), o th erw ise p erm its su sp icio n -less search es in th e cu rren t circu m stan ces. 1 The e xi s t e nc e of r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on i s a s c e rt a i ne d fr om the t ot a l i ty

of the4

circu m stan ces. S ee, e.g ., U n itedS tates v . A rv izu , 5 3 4 U .S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 (2 0 0 2 ). “T h is pr oc e s s a l l ows offi c e r s t o dr aw on the i r own e xpe r i e nc e and s pe c i a l i z e d tr a i ni ng t o m ake infere nces from

and d educti on s a

bo ut the c umulat ive i nf

orm at ion avail able to them that
m ight well el ud e an u ntra ined pers on .” Id. ( qu otat ion o m itte d). “ Althou gh an of fice r’ s r e l i anc e on am e r e ‘ hunc h’ i s i ns uffi c i e nt [t o s at i s fy

the r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on r e qui r e m e nt ], the l i ke l i hood of c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty ne e d not r i s e t o the l e ve l r e qui r e d for pr obabl e c aus e , and i t

fa l l s c ons i de r abl y

s hort of s at i s fyi ng apr e ponde r anc e of the evidence s tand ar d.” I d. at 27 4 (ci tati on s om itte d); s ee al so, e .g., Un it ed Stat es v. Baker, 2 2 1 F .3 d4 3 8 , 4 4 4 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“T h e d ecisio n to search m u st b e b asedo n ‘sp ecif

ic fact s, ’ but the off

ic er need no t posse ss prob able ca use. ” ( qu otat ion o m itte d)). Init ia ll y , t he Distri ct

Co urt properl y

dete rm ined that

the par ole a gents posse ss ed
r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on t o s e ar c h He nry ’ s ve hi c l e on Oc t obe r 21, 2003. Spe c i a l Age nt Ge r a l d Ga l l a ghe r

of the Bur e au of Al c ohol , Toba c c o, and Fi r e arm s ( “ ATF” ) l e arne d on October 7, 200 3 that Henry was i nv olved in the Au gu st 20 03 straw p urchas es of se vera l

“ l o n g g u n s ” i n M o n t g o m e ry C o u n ty. A g e n t G a l l a g h e r

th e n s p o k e w i th D o n n aH e n ry, wh o sup er

vise d the parole of

fice r a ss igned to H enry , on O ct ob er 20 , 200 3. He told her abo ut the Mo nt go m e ry

Co un ty s tr aw p ur c ha s e s andhi s de s i r e t o s pe ak w i th H e nr y . On the ne xt day , He nry

arr i ve d at

the par ol e offi c e wi thout as c he dul e d a

ppoi ntm e nt

and a s ke d for the ankl e m oni t or

t o be r e m ove d. Ba s e d on the i nform at i on fr om Age nt G allag h er, H en ry

w as d etain ed . H e ad m ittedth at h e trav eledo u tsid e o f P h ilad elp h ia5

C o u n ty . A f

ter p u rp o rted ly

o b tain in g h is co n sen t, h is v eh icle w as search ed . T h e p aro le ag en ts f o u n d , in ter alia, a tu rnp ik e tick et, w h ich in d icatedtrav el o u tsid e P h ilad elp h ia County i n vi ol at i on of the c ondi t i ons of par ol e , abum pe r s t i c ke r for the gun s hop
m en tio n edb y

A g en t G allag h er, an dth ree m etal p ip es (ev en tu ally d eterm in edn o t to co n tain ex p lo siv es). In th e en d , th e in f o rm atio n reg ard in g p o ssib le p aro le v io latio n s, c om bi ne d wi th Supe rvi s or

He nry ’ s knowl e dge of He nry ’ s own pr i or c r i m i na l hi s t ory , the circu m stan ces o f

h is u n ex p ectedv isit to th e p aro le o f f ice ask in g f

o r th e rem o v al o f

h is an k le m o n ito r, an dh er o w n ex p erien ce as a p aro le ag en t, clearly f u rn ish edreaso n ab le su sp icio n to b eliev e th at H en ry ’s car w o u ldco n tain ev id en ce o f p aro le v io latio n s. He nry a c knowl e dge s that

the par ol e a ge nt s ha d “ r e a s on t o s us pe c t that a ppe l l ant ha d vi ol at e d the c ondi t i ons of hi s r e l e a s e ( by part i c i pat i ng i n the s tr aw pur c ha s e s and l e avi ng the County) . ” ( Appe l l ant ’ s Br . at 19. ) Howe ve r , he c l a i m s that “ wha t i s m i s s i ng here ar e the ‘s peci fic fact s’ that wo uld h ave perm itte d a re as on able infere nce that e vi de nc e of thos e vi ol at i ons ( or s om e othe r

vi ol at i on) woul d be found i ns i de the
v eh icle.” (Id .) B u t, co n trary to h is ch aracterizatio n s, S up erv iso r H en ry n ev er actu ally conceded this po int i n h er te st im on y . She did adm it that Ag ent Gal la gh er

never s pe c i fi c a l l y

t ol d he r that s he m i ght

fi nd we a pons i n He nry ’ s ve hi c l e or on hi s pe r s on and that s he l i ke wi s e di d not

have part i c ul ar

i nform at i on that

he ha d we a

pons on hi s pe r s on, in h is v eh icle, o r in h is resid en ce. S h e f u rth er ad m ittedth at sh e “d idn ’t en ter th e car to lo o kf o r a tu rnp ik e tick et.” (9 2 a.) O n th e o th er h an d , S up erv iso r H en ry testif iedth at, in6

her e xp er ie nce, parole es , parti cularl y those with con vict ions fo r viole nt of fenses invo lving w ea

po ns, often have weapon s i n their vehicl es . While Henry

em ph as iz es her p assin g statem en t th at sh e w as lo o k in g f o r “[ f ] u rth er v io latio n s o f

an y k in d ,” th is as se rt ion cam e i n res po nse t o a cr oss- exam inat ion quest ion that i nacc urat el y cl ai m ed that Supervis or Henry

had p re viou sl y

te st ifie d that s he “had no re as on to beli eve there were weapon s i n there .” (92a-93a.) We li kewise m

ust r ejec t Henry ’s ar gu m ent that the pres ent c ir cum st ance s are ana l ogous t o the c i r c um s t anc e s a ddr e s s e d by thi s Court

i n Uni t e d St at e s v. Bake r , 221 F .3 d4 3 8 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). In B ak er, th e d ef en d an t w as arrestedb y

p aro le ag en ts b ecau se h e v io lateda p aro le co n d itio nag ain st driv in g w ith o u t a licen se. Id . at 4 4 0 . T h e ag en ts th en search edth e tru n ko f h is car, f in d in g dru g p arap h ern alia. Id . at 4 4 0 -4 1 . We h eld that the y l a c ke d r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on t o s e ar c h the tr unk be c aus e the par ol e vi ol at i on of dr i vi ng wi thout

al i c e ns e ha d no a

ppar e nt r e l at i on t o any

thi ng that c oul d be found i n the tru n k . Id . at 4 4 5 (“[ N ] eith er B ak er’s v io latio n o f h is p aro le b y

driv in g a v eh icle n o r h is fail ure t o d ocum ent that he own ed the vehic le can g ive r is e t o a re as on able suspic ion that he wa s c omm i tt i ng othe r , uns pe c i fi e d, unr e l at e d par ol e vi ol at i ons – the e vi de nc e of
w h ich m ig h t b e f

o u n din th e tru n k .” (citatio n o m itted )). O n th e o th er h an d , th e p aro le a ge nt s he r e ha d ar e a s onabl e ba s i s t o s e ar c h He nry ’ s ve hi c l e , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ght of the sp ecif ic in f o rm atio n reg ard in g th e straw p u rch ases acro ss co un ty lin es. Fo ll ow ing the se ar ch of

the c ar and q uest ioning by

Ag ent Gal la gh er

(a fter7

Mirand a war

ning s wer e given and h e s igned a waiver) , par ole a gents s earc hed H enry ’s resid en ce w ith th e p erm issio n o f h is o w n m o th er. T h ey

seizeda n u m

b er o f item s, incl ud ing the weapon s a cquire d in the straw p urchas es . Henry ’s chal le ng e t o this s earc h l ar ge l y r e s t s on the not i on that

thi s s e c ond s e ar c h ( a s we l l a s hi s s t at e m e nt s t o Age nt G allag h er at th e p aro le o f f ice) co n stitu tedth e “in ad m issib le f ru it” o f th e co n stitu tio n ally de fi c i e nt s e ar c h of hi s ve hi c l e . ( Appe l l ant ’ s Br . at 17. ) W e , howe ve r , have a l r e a dy co n clu d edth at th is in itial search w as sup p o rtedb y reaso n ab le su sp icio n . L ik ew ise, h is a s s e rt i on that

“ the r e we r e no ‘ s pe c i fi c fa c t s ’ whi c h c oul d have pos s i bl y gi ve n r i s e t o a reaso n ab le su sp icio n th at f irearm s o r ev id en ce o f

so m e o th er u n sp ecif

iedv io latio n w o u ld be fo un d” m

ust be r ejec te d g iven Ag ent Gal la gh er ’s ow n tes ti m on y that Henry adm itte d to him that the gun s had been st ored at the hou se at

som e point. ( Ap pell ant’ s Br. at 20 .) A g en t G allag h er f

u rth er to ldth e D istrict C o u rt th at, in h is ex p erien ce, su sp ects ten dto ke e p guns i n the i r

r e s i de nc e s , that

s uc h guns ar e oft e n r e c ove r e d s om e t i m e a ft e r the au th o rities receiv e in f

o rm atio n ab o u t th eir lo catio n , an dth at lo n g g u n s esp ecially ten dto be ke pt l onge r than handguns . Supe rvi s or He nry c onfi rm e d thi s a c c ount

by t e s t i fyi ng th at p aro lees w h o h adb een co n v ictedo f w eap o n s o f

f en ses o f ten k eep f

irearm s at th eir hom e s . Eve n s e tt i ng a s i de the fa c t that He nry ’ s m othe r

c ons e nt e d t o the s e ar c h i t s e l f, the Di s tr i c t Court pr ope r l y found that

the s e ar c h of the r e s i de nc e wa s s upport e d byT h e g o v e rn m e n t ra ise s a n u m b e r o f a d d iti o n a l g ro u n d s f

o r w h y w e sh o u ld u p h o ld 2 t he D i s t r i ct C our t ‘ s r ul i ng deny i ng H enr y ’ s m ot i ons t o s uppr es s . B ut , gi ven t he cl ear exi s t ence of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, w e nee d not addr es s t hes e addi t i onal poi nt s t o r es ol ve th is a p p e a l. 8 r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on. 2 II I. F o r th e f o reg o in g reaso n s, w e w ill af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.