2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-17-2008 

# U SA v . Pe rsinge r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4902

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . P e r sin g e r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 834. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/834H o n o ra b le A . W a llac e T a sh im a , S e n io r Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * forthe N i nth C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 06- 4902

__________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. ANTONI O PE RS I NGER, A ppel l ant

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C. Cr i mi na l N o. 06 - 19 4- J PF) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am

__________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on M ar ch 27, 2008 B efore: M cK E E , R E N D E L L , and T A S H IM A , C i rcui tJudg es. * Fi l ed: J ul y17, 2008

__________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

__________I n or dert o pr es erve a c l ai m of err orforappea l , a partys houl d gener al l y“i nform [] 1 th e c o u rt— w h e n th e c o u rt ru lin g o r o rd e r is m a d e o r so u g h t— o f th e a c tio n th e p a rty w i s hes the courtt o t ake, orthe party ’ s obj ect i on t o the court ’ s act i on and the gr ounds for th a t o b jec tio n .” F e d . R . C rim . P . 5 1 (b ). T h e “ o b jec tio n m u st b e sp e c if

ic e n o u g h n o t o n ly 2 T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge. A n t o n i o P e r s i n g e ra p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v icte d f

e lo n , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). P rio r to trial, P e rsin g e r m o v e d to su p p ress e v iden ce o f th e f ir ea rm as th e f

ruito f a n il lega l sei zu re. T h e d istri ct co u rt deni ed the mot i on. O n appea l , Per s i ngercont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed byfai l i ng t o conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng, m ake f i ndi ngs of fa ct , and art i cul at e conc l us i ons of law . H e a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e sta tu te o f c o n v ictio n is u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se it r epr es ent s an i nval i d exer ci s e of Congre s s ’ pow erunderthe C om m er ce Cl aus e of the U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . See U . S. C ons t . art . I , § 8, cl . 3. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r eci t e onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our anal y s i s of the i s s ues pr es ent ed on appe al . W e r evi ew the “D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o the under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs and exe r ci s e[] pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw t o thos e fa ct s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F . 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). P ersing er d id n o t call to the D istri ct C o u rt ’s att en ti o n an ym aterial fa ctua l dispu tes, n o r did h e c h all en g e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s u n d e rsta n d in g o f

th e f a c ts o f h is s e izu re . W e th e re f o re re v iew f

o r p lain e rro r h is 1t o putthe j udge on not i ce thatther e i s i n fac tan obj ect i on, butt o s erve not i ce a s t o the

under l y i ng bas i s forthe obj ect i on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . R u ss e ll , 1 3 4 F . 3 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A t n o p o in t d u rin g th e Ju ly3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , p re trial c o llo q u yd id P e rsin g e r sp e c if ica lly r eques tan evi dent i aryhear i ng orchal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s under s t andi ng of the r el evantfac t s . Fur ther , the bas i s of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng w as i t s r ej ect i on of P e rsin g e r’s leg a l ar g u m e n t th a t th e o f f ice r a rre ste d h im w ith o u t h a v in g a n y“ c o n c e iv a b le bas i s fordoi ng s o. ” H avi ng s o rul ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tw oul d have no r eas on t o expec t th a t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g w o u ld b e n e c e s s a ry, a b s e n t s o m e o b je c tio n b yP e rs in g e r. W e concl ude thatPer s i ngerfai l ed t o pr es erve hi s obj ect i on. 3 c o n ten tio n th a t h e is e n tit led to a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g f o r th a t p u rp o se . U n d e r th is s t andar d, Per s i ngerm us ts how that“( 1) an err orw as comm i t t ed; ( 2) the err orw as pl ai n, thati s , cl earand obvi ous ; and ( 3) the err oraff ect ed [hi s ] s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . H

a ll , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). R e v iew in g th e re c o rd b e f o re u s, w e c a n n o t sa yth a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in fai l i ng t o conductan evi dent i aryhear i ng. T he fa ct s l ai d outi n Per s i nger ’ s m emora ndum in su p p o rto f h is m o ti o n to su p p ress p h y sical ev iden ce all eg e tha t tw o p o li ce o ff icers w i tnes s ed a ve hi cl e i n w hi ch Per s i ngerw as a pas s engerdi s r egar d a s t op s i gn. T he offi cer s att empt ed t o pul l the vehi cl e overbyact i vat i ng thei rcar ’ s s i gnal l i ght s . I ns t ead o f s to p p in g , th e v e h ic le le d th e o f f ic e rs o n a c h a s e , c o llid in g tw ic e w ith p a rk e d c a rs . W h e n th e v e h ic le c a m e to a s to p , th e d ri v e r e x ite d th e v e h ic le a n d ra n f ro m th e s c e n e . O ne off i cerfol l ow ed the dr i ver , and the r emai ni ng offi cer , O ffi cerSel l er s , appr oache d t he pas s enger - s i de door . O ffi cerSel l er s or der ed Per s i ngert o s how hi s hands , and Per s i nger compl i ed. O ffi cerSel l er s then opene d the pas s enger - s i de door , and, us i ng a contr ol hol d, r e mo v e d P e r s i n g e rf

r o m th e v e h i c l e a n d p l a c e d h i m f a c e d o wn o n th e s i d e wa l k . As4

O f f ic e r S e lle rs w a s a b o u t to h a n d c u f f P e rs in g e r, h e n o tic e d th e h a n d g u n o n th e g ro u n d . T he governm ent ’ s r es pons e t o Per s i nger ’ s s uppr es s i on m ot i on cont ai ned onl ya fe w fac tual di ffe r ence s . I tadded mor e det ai l aboutthe cha s e, not i ng thatthe vehi cl e r an a st op si gn , a red traffi c l i gh t , and then ult i m at el yend ed u p crashi ng i nto a fence. I tal so s t at ed thatPer s i ngerhad begun t o exi tthe ca rbefor e O ffi cerSel l er s gr abbed hi m and p la c e d h im o n th e g ro u n d . A d istric t co u rt is n o t alw a y s o b lig a ted to c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g in c o n ju n c tio n w ith a m o tio n to su p p re ss , b u t n e e d o n lyd o so “ if th e d if f e re n c e in f

a c ts is m at er i al , thati s , onl yi f the di s put ed fa ctm akes a di ffe r ence i n the out come. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Juar ez , 454 F. 3d 717, 720 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U nited S tates v. B erkow i t z, 9 2 7 F .2 d 1 3 7 6 , 1 3 8 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 )). A n e v id e n tiary he a rin g w a s n o t w a rra n ted in th is cas e bec aus e, even a s s um i ng thatthe di ffe r ence s betw een Per s i nger ’ s and the g o v ern m en t’ s ac co u n ts of the f ac ts w ere m aterial , the D istri ct C o u rtac ce p ted P ersing er’s v e r s i o n o f

e v e n t s f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

ru l i n g o n h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . M o s ti m p o r t a n t l y, the D i s tr i ctC our tacc ept ed Per s i nger ’ s centr al cont ent i on thathe w as “pul l ed . . . outof the ca r . ” Ther efor e, the anyfac tual di ffe r ence s betw een the ver s i ons of eve nt s r el at ed by the part i es coul d nothave a ffe ct ed the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. Per s i ngeral s o cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o art i cul at e the l egal bas i s fori t s deni al of hi s s uppr es s i on m ot i on. W e r ej ectthatcont ent i on. Per s i nger fai l s t o ci t e author i tyi m pos i ng upon the D i s tr i ctC our tthe obl i gat i on t o art i cul at e the leg a l b a sis f

o r its d e c isio n in g re a ter d e tail th a n it d id in th is c a se . P e rsin g e r c o rre c tly5

obs erves thatappel l at e court s have r emanded m att er s t o the di s tr i ctcourtw her e the re a s o n in g o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s in d is c e rn ib le . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. R am s tad , 219 F. 3d 1263, 1265 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( r emandi ng w her e “the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notm ake a ny f in d in g s o r o th e rw ise e x p lain th e b a sis f o r its d e c isio n ” ); Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 951 F. 2d 1287, 1291 ( D . C . C i r . 1991) ( r emandi ng w her e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on pr ovi ded “nei theres s ent i al fi ndi ngs norl egal r eas oni ng”) . H ow ever , i n the ca s es he ci t es , i tw as the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fai l ur e t o r es ol ve fa ctual di s put es thatm ade i ti m pos s i bl e t o cons i der the l egal i s s ues on appea l ; thos e s ame cas es acknow l edged thatr emand w oul d be u n n e c e s s a ry w h e re th e re c o rd w a s w e ll- d e v e lo p e d . See Ram s tad , 219 F. 3d at1265 ( not i ng that“r emand m aybe unnec es s aryw her e the pr ocee di ngs bel ow r es ul t ed i n a r ecor d of ampl ys uffi ci entdet ai l and depth fr om w hi ch the det erm i nat i on m aybe made”) (c itatio n a n d q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); Wi l l i a ms , 951 F. 2d at1288 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng cas es in w h ich “ th e f

a c ts a re so c e rta in , an d th e leg a l co n se q u e n c e s s o a p p a re n t, th a t li ttl e gues s w or k i s neede d t o det erm i ne the gr ounds forthe rul i ng”) . I n contr as t , ther e i s no dis pu t e abo ut the m at eri al fact s i n thi s case. Inst ead, Pers i ng er’ s appea l present s a ques t i on of l aw – w hetherO ffi cerSel l er s ’ s s ei zur e of Per s i ngerw as r eas onabl e – over w h ic h w e e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . See, e. g. , Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 413 F. 3d 347, 351 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ W e re v iew d e n o v o th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n o f re a so n a b le su sp icio n a n d p ro b a b le c a u se , as w e ll as its d e ter m in a tio n re g a rd in g w h e th e r [ d e f e n d a n t] w as s ei zed f

orpurpos es of the Four th A m endment . ”) . W e mayther efor e cons i derthe propri et yof the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of P ers i ng er’ s m oti on t o sup press .6

P ersing er d o es n o t con testthe leg ali tyo f th e initi al st o p o f th e v eh icl e. H o w ev er, he ar gues t hathe s houl d nothave be en r emoved fr om the ca rand r es tr ai ned. A pol i ce o f f ice r m a y , as a m a tter o f c o u rse , o rd e r a p a ss e n g e r o f a law f u llysto p p e d c a r to e x it h is v e h ic le . See M

ar yland v. W

i l s on , 519 U . S. 408, 410 ( 1997) . Such pas s enger s m aybe s ubj ectt o a br i ef s ei zur e ors ear ch pur s uantt o T e rr y v . O h io , 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) , i f the c ir c u m s ta n c e s p e rm it. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Mo o re

field , 1 1 1 F .3 d 1 0 , 1 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W e have pr evi ous l yuphel d a T erry s t op and fr i s k of a pa s s engerw hen “s peci fi c and a rt ic u la b le f

a c ts w h ic h , ta k e n to g e th e r w ith ra tio n a l in f e re n c e s f ro m th o s e f

a c ts ,” re a s o n a b ly w a rr a n te d it. Mo o re field , 111 F. 3d at14 ( quot i ng T erry , 392 U . S. at21) . T he fac t s s urr oundi ng the cha s e of Per s i nger ’ s vehi cl e cl ear l ygave r i s e t o s us pi ci on that Per s i ngerm i ghthave be en i nvol ved i n w r ongdoi ng, s uch thata br i ef de t ent i on for ques t i oni ng w as j us t i fi ed. W hen conduc t i ng an i nves t i gat i ve s t op, pol i ce of fi cer s “may tak e su c h ste p s a s a re re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryto p ro tec t th e ir p e rso n a l sa f e tya n d to m ai nt ai n the s t atus quo dur i ng the cour s e of the s t op. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. E dw ar ds , 53 F. 3d 6 1 6 , 6 1 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). See a l so H ayni e v. Cou n t y o f L. A. , 339 F. 3d 1071, 1077 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng thathandcuf fi ng a per s on and det ai ni ng hi m i n t he r earof a pa tr ol carw as a r eas onabl e T erry s t op, and notan a rre st, w h e re th e re stra in t w a s n e c e ss a ryf o r th e o f f ice r to sa f

e lyc o m p lete h is i nves t i gat i on) . G i ven thatO ffi cerSel l er s r emai ned behi nd byhi m s el f w hi l e hi s partner g a v e c h a se to th e d riv e r o n f o o t, fo llo w in g a v e h icle c h a se in w h ich th e o f f e n d in g v e h icle col l i ded w i th s ever al car s befor e cr as hi ng t o a s t op, i tw as r eas onabl e forhi m t o pl aceW e fi nd unper s uas i ve Per s i nger ’ s cont ent i on thatthe di s tr i ctcourtfound thathe 2 w as arr es t ed w hen O ffi cerSel l er s r emoved hi m fr om the vehi cl e. W hethera T erry s t op tr ans form s i nt o an arr es ti s nota fa ct , buta ques t i on of l aw r equi r i ng an ana l y s i s of the re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

th e in tru s io n . See Bakerv. Monr oe Tw p. , 5 0 F . 3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 2 (3d C ir . 1995) . E ven ac cept i ng the cont ent i on thatthe di s tr i ctcourtper cei ved the s ei zur e ati s s ue t o b e a n a rr e s t , we c o u l d d i s a g r e e wh e n c o n d u c t i n g o u rp l e n a ryr e v i e w. M o r e o v e r , we m a ya f f ir m th e d e n ia l o f

a s u p p re s s io n m o tio n o n a n yg ro u n d s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . See U ni t ed Stat es v. A gnew , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 7 Per s i ngeron the gr ound i n or dert o ques t i on hi m s afe l y . W e ther efor e hol d thatthe D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng P ers i ng er’ s m oti on t o sup press . 2 II. P e rsin g e r a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e sta tu te o f c o n v ictio n , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), is uncons t i tut i onal beca us e i tcr i m i nal i zes conductthatdoes nothave a s ubs t ant i al eff ect up on i nter st at e com m erce, and thu s does no tcon st i tute a val i d ex erci se of C on gress ’ C o m m e rc e C la u s e a u th o ri ty. W e h a v e p re v io u s ly re je c te d th is c o n te n tio n , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. Singl etary , 268 F. 3d 196, 205 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , and ar e bound t o r es pecti tabs ent e n b a n c c o n s id e ra tio n , s e e id . at204. III . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , w e w ill A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.