IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-30919

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AL DAC HO, also known as Ai Dac Ho,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

_________________________________________________________________

August 27, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit

Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:

The sole issue addressed in this Fourth Amendment warrantless

search and seizure case is whether the police officer had probable

cause to arrest Al Dac Ho before Ho revoked his voluntary consent

to search his portfolio. Based on the explicit testimony from the

suppression hearing, we conclude that, at the time Ho withdrew his

consent, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest Ho, and

thus lawfully could not continue the warrantless search of Ho's

portfolio as a search incident to arrest. The evidence obtained

after Ho revoked his consent was the fruit of an unconstitutional
 

1The officers of the Narcotics Interdiction Unit routinely

conduct surveillances of incoming flights from Los Angeles because

of Los Angeles’ status as a major distribution point for narcotics.

-2-

search, and we therefore reverse the district court's ruling on

Ho's motion to suppress, vacate Ho’s plea of guilty, and remand for

further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

I

On the morning of February 20, 1995, Lieutenant Gerard Simone

and another officer, members of the New Orleans International

Airport Narcotics Interdiction Unit of the Jefferson Parish

Sheriff’s Office, were conducting a surveillance of a flight from

Los Angeles.1 The officers alerted to the defendant, Al Dac Ho, a

passenger on the flight, because he walked briskly down the

concourse, had no carry-on luggage, and made no attempt to claim

any checked luggage. The officers approached Ho, identified

themselves, and asked Ho to produce his ticket. Ho produced a oneway ticket purchased with cash. Ho consented to a search of his

person, including a small leather portfolio he was carrying. Ho

told the officers that he would be in New Orleans for approximately

two weeks and that his sister was bringing his luggage on a later

flight.

The next day, a concerned citizen advised Officer Simone that

Ho had purchased a cash one-way airline ticket to Los Angeles
-3-

departing that morning at 8:15 a.m. Officer Simone, accompanied by

two other officers, approached Ho as the flight was boarding. Ho

gave his consent to a search of his person and his portfolio.

During the search of the portfolio, Officer Simone focused on a

blank, white plastic card the size and shape of a credit card. Ho

immediately struggled to retrieve the portfolio when the officer

found the card. Officer Simone testified that it was obvious that

Ho did not want him to look further at the portfolio when Ho

attempted to retrieve the portfolio. The officer was able,

however, to retain the portfolio. Upon further investigation of

the white plastic card, Officer Simone discovered that the card had

a magnetic strip on the back. The officers then arrested Ho for

possession of a counterfeit credit card. After they arrested Ho,

the officers searched the rest of the portfolio and found another

similar blank credit card, along with seventeen counterfeit

travelers checks and several pieces of paper with what appeared to

be credit card account numbers on them.

II

Ho was charged with one count of transporting a fraudulent

credit card in interstate commerce and one count of knowingly

possessing counterfeit securities. He filed a motion to suppress

the fruits of what he asserted was an illegal search conducted by

Officer Simone. Ho argued that the search was illegal because
 

2The dissent argues that we should apply the plain error

standard to this claim because Ho presents it for the first time on

appeal. We are at a complete loss to understand how the dissent

can claim that the matter was not preserved in the district court.

First, unlike the defendant in United States v. Alvarado-Saldivar,

62 F.3d 697, 699, Ho argued this claim "in open court" and the

district court responded, "I understand that. I think it is in

order for to you [sic] point that out to me. I take it in to

consideration as well." Tr., at 47 (emphasis added). Second,

unlike the defendant in United States v. Maldanado, 42 F.3d 906,

910-11 (5th Cir. 1995), the record reveals that Ho established the

factual basis for the issue in his examination of Officer Simone.

See infra. Third, the state failed to raise the dissent's plain

error argument in its brief to this court; it addressed the claim

on the merits. Although the dissent is correct in pointing out

that "this does not preclude our exploring this issue sua sponte,"

we find the state's "failure" to raise it strongly suggests that

the state itself considered the claim properly to be preserved for

appeal and that the state felt neither "ambushed" nor "sandbagged"

on appeal. In our view, therefore, it is totally inapt to review

this claim for plain error. 

-4-

Simone did not have a warrant and Ho did not initially consent to

the search. The government filed an opposition to Ho's motion, and

the district court conducted a suppression hearing at which both

Officer Simone and Ho testified. At the conclusion of the hearing,

counsel for Ho argued that even if Ho had consented to the search,

he effectively withdrew that consent by attempting to retrieve the

portfolio from Officer Simone before the officer had probable cause

to continue the search without Ho's consent and without a warrant.2

The district court denied Ho's motion to suppress, stating

summarily that it was compelled to deny the motion after weighing

the credibility of the two witnesses. Ho then entered a plea of

guilty to the indictment, conditioned upon his ability to appeal
-5-

the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court

sentenced Ho to ten months' imprisonment to be followed by three

years of supervised release. Ho timely filed his notice of appeal.

III

We begin our consideration of this appeal from the premise

that "warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable

unless they fall within a few narrowly defined exceptions." United

States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1147 (5th Cir. 1993), cert.

denied, 114 S.Ct. 2150 (1994). One such exception to the warrant

requirement exists for searches incident to a lawful arrest.

United States v. Barlow, 17 F.3d 85, 89 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

115 S.Ct. 148 (1994). A warrantless arrest must be based on

probable cause. United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th

Cir. 1995). 

Although the challenged search in this case occurred

immediately prior to Ho's arrest, this does not prevent the search

from being considered incident to a lawful arrest, Rawlings v.

Kentucky, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2564 (1980); United States v. Hernandez,

825 F.2d 846, 852 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 1032

(1988), as long the fruits of the search incident to the arrest are

unnecessary to support probable cause for the arrest. 100 S.Ct. at

2564 & n.6. "If the arresting officers lacked probable cause and

the arrest is invalid, evidence discovered as a result of the
 

3The government relies on the Seventh Circuit's decision in

United States v. Jachimko, 19 F.3d 296, 299 (7th Cir. 1994), to

argue that because the officer had already "discovered" the card

before Ho revoked his consent, the subsequent warrantless seizure

of the card from the portfolio was valid. The court in Jachimko

stated, "Where a suspect does not withdraw his valid consent to a

search for illegal substances before they are discovered, the

consent remains valid and the substances are admissible as

evidence." Id. (citation omitted). We have yet to address the

Seventh Circuit's "discovery" rule, cf. Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d

426, 429 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding that revocation of consent does

not require government to return copies of business records taken

before revocation), and we find it unnecessary to do so today.

First, Jachimko is distinguishable from the present case because

the illegal nature of the substance in that case, marijuana plants,

was readily apparent on first sight. The illegal nature of the

plastic card was not immediately obvious here. Second, the

government acknowledges that Officer Simone must have established

probable cause of criminal activity at the time of the revocation

of consent in order to have seized the card. Third, we conclude

that, on the facts of this case, probable cause to justify seizure

of the card mirrors probable cause to arrest Ho.

 

4Based upon the facts adduced during the suppression hearing,

the district court's finding that Ho voluntarily consented to the

search is not clearly erroneous.

-6-

arrest is subject to suppression under the Fourth Amendment as the

'fruit' of an illegal arrest." 59 F.3d at 512. Officer Simone's

continued search of Ho's portfolio after the revocation of consent

was therefore constitutional only if the officer had probable cause

to arrest Ho.3 The sole issue for us to address is thus whether

Officer Simone had probable cause to arrest Ho at the time that Ho

revoked his consent.4

A
-7-

"Probable cause is determined by an objective test: it cannot

be established simply by showing that the police subjectively

believed that probable cause existed . . . ." United States v.

Cooper, 949 F.2d 737, 744 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct.

2945 (1992).

Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the

totality of facts and circumstances within a police

officer's knowledge at the moment of the arrest are

sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the

suspect had committed or was committing an offense.

Although probable cause requires more than a bare

suspicion of wrongdoing, it requires `substantially less

evidence than that sufficient to support a conviction.'

Wadley, 59 F.3d at 512 (quoting United States v. Muniz-Melchor, 894

F.2d 1430, 1438 (5th Cir.)(internal citation omitted), cert.

denied, 110 S.Ct. 1957 (1990)). The facts and circumstances "must

be viewed in light of the observations, knowledge, and training of

the law enforcement officers involved in the warrantless search."

894 F.2d at 1438 (citation omitted). The existence of probable

cause is a mixed question of fact and law. 59 F.3d at 512. We

review the factual findings supporting the district court's

probable cause determination for clear error. Id. The ultimate

determination of probable cause, however, is a question of law

subject to de novo review. Id.

A defendant normally bears the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the challenged search or seizure

was unconstitutional. United States v. Roch, 5 F.3d 894, 897 (5th
 

5A consent which waives Fourth Amendment rights may be

limited, qualified, or withdrawn. Mason, 557 F.2d at 428-29. 

 

6Officer Simone testified:

Q. Was it obvious to you at the point when you had

opened the portfolio and he attempted to grab it, that at

that point he did not want you to look at it any further?

A. Yes, it was. I had already discovered the card.

Q. He consented, it was clear to you he was not

consenting at that point to anything further?

A. That's correct.

Tr., at 20.

-8-

Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. De La Fuente, 548 F.2d 528, 533

(5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Stewart v. United States, 97

S.Ct. 2640 (1977)). In a case such as this one, however, in which

the officer acted without a warrant, the government bears the

ultimate burden of proving that the officer had probable cause.

Id.

B

The district court's order refers to credibility choices in

denying the motion to suppress. Although credibility choices were

crucial to the issue of initial consent, a review of the record

reveals no material dispute as to the facts necessary to resolve

the legal question of probable cause that is before us today.

Officer Simone testified that Ho had revoked his consent5 when the

officer first located the white plastic card in the portfolio.6 He

also testified that he did not find the magnetic strip on the back
 

7Officer Simone testified:

Q. Officer, isn't it true that you examined the card

and noticed the magnetic strip on the card after he

attempted to pull it away and after you regained control

of it?

A. When I first found the card is when he tried to pull

it away, after I regained control of the folder is when

I looked at it and found the magnetic strip on the rear

of it.

Q. So, before he tried to pull it away, all you saw,

the front of the card?

A. It was a totally blank white card.

* * *

Q. Before you tried to controlled [sic] it, all you saw

was a blank credit card?

A. That's correct.

Q. A blank piece of plastic?

A. Size and shape of a credit card; correct.

Tr., at 20-21.

 

8Officer Simone testified:

Q. Whenever Mr. Ho pulled the portfolio back from the

position when you examined and you already discovered the

white piece of plastic, did you have probable cause in

your mind to seize the credit card?

A. Yes, I did.

Tr., at 23.

-9-

of the card until after Ho had revoked his consent.7 As the facts

are undisputed, the only issue before us is the district court's

ultimate legal determination that Officer Simone had probable cause

to arrest Ho based on his discovery of a white piece of plastic the

size and shape of a credit card in Ho's portfolio.

 In reviewing the record, the question, of course, is not

whether Officer Simone subjectively believed--as he stated on

redirect examination8--that he had probable cause before Ho revoked

consent. Cooper, 949 F.2d at 744. Instead, the question is
-10-

whether "the totality of facts and circumstances within [his]

knowledge at the moment of [revocation we]re sufficient for a

reasonable person to conclude that [Ho] had committed or was

committing an offense." Wadley, 59 F.3d at 512. We can agree that

the record supports a legal conclusion that a reasonable person

with Officer Simone's knowledge and experience would have had some

suspicion--as distinguished from probable cause to believe--that

the white piece of plastic was fraudulent before Ho's revocation of

consent. 

A review of Officer Simone's testimony as a whole reveals in

the clearest tones the importance of the magnetic strip to his

determination that the card was fraudulent. On direct examination

by the government, Officer Simone testified:

Q. When you noticed the small white plastic card you

found, did you know what that was, from your experience

as a police officer?

A. In the past I encountered those cards and cards like

that one, which were blank, had the magnetic strips on

the rear of them. And they were later determined to be

fraudulent credit cards.

Tr., at 11 (emphasis added). Crucially, this testimony reveals the

specific factors, based on Officer Simone's experience, which would

warrant a conclusion that the card was fraudulent. On crossexamination, he testified:

Q. Isn't it true, an examination of the card, after the

brief struggle where you saw the magnetic strip,

indicated to you that this was contraband?
 

9The police report is not a part of the record.

-11-

A. That's correct.

Q. All that occurred after he made it clear he was not

consenting to this search?

A. When I first located the card, it was obvious it was

some type of contraband or something, that is when I

controlled the folder.

* * *

Q. It was the examination of the metal strip after that

was the indication that this was --

A. Well, in the past I had encountered cards the same

size and shape that were, in fact, fraudulent, saw the

card, I suspected it was a fraudulent credit card.

Tr., at 21-22 (emphasis added). Although Officer Simone made an

effort to backpedal after admitting that it was the discovery of

the magnetic strip that led him to believe that the plastic card

was fraudulent, he still could say nothing more specific than that

"it was obvious it was some type of contraband or something" and

that he "suspected" it was fraudulent. Furthermore, Officer

Simone testified that his arrest report indicated that he knew the

card was fraudulent only after discovering the magnetic strip:9

Q. In your report, isn't it true when you detailed the

events of the day, you say after gaining control of the

folder you examined the card, you noticed the magnetic

strip on the rear and this indicated to you this card was

of a fraudulent nature?

A. That's correct.
-12-

Tr., at 21-22. He did not deny, back away from or attempt to

explain this critical admission. Thus, taken as a whole, Officer

Simone's testimony dictates the legal conclusion that the discovery

of the magnetic strip after Ho revoked his consent was an essential

element of the probable cause determination for an officer with

Officer Simone's knowledge and experience. 

Other factors also buttress the conclusion that a reasonable

person with Officer Simone's knowledge and experience would not

have had probable cause to believe that criminal activity was afoot

when Ho revoked his consent. First, the government, on whom the

burden was placed to justify this warrantless search, Roch, 5 F.3d

at 897, presented no explanation why a white plastic card the size

and shape of a credit card in a portfolio, standing alone, is

sufficient to give a reasonable person probable cause to believe

that it is a fraudulent credit card. The absence of evidence on

this point is especially striking in the light of the ubiquity of

plastic “swipe” cards in our modern society--for locks on hotel

room doors, office buildings, gates and garages, telephones and

check cashing--which often are plain on one side. Second, the

government elicited almost no testimony from which to gauge the

extent of Officer Simone's knowledge and experience in the area of

credit card fraud. In fact, the government presented no

information about his career other than his service in the
 

10We think this distinction is important because the piece of

plastic would have had much less immediate criminal significance to

a reasonable person with the knowledge and experience of an officer

whose day-to-day activities focused on investigating illegal drug

trafficking.

-13-

Narcotics Interdiction Unit at the time of the arrest. Third, as a

member of the Narcotics Unit, Officer Simone was on the lookout for

drugs and not counterfeit credit cards.10 In the same vein, it is

also clear, based on Ho's encounter with Officer Simone the

previous day, that Officer Simone suspected Ho of drug trafficking,

not credit card fraud; in other words, there was no predicate

background in the investigation to support the criminal character

of the card. Fourth, Officer Simone did not arrest Ho until after

he regained control of the portfolio and actually discovered the

magnetic strip on the back of the card. 

IV

We emphasize that probable cause is more than a "bare

suspicion" of wrongdoing. Viewing the record as a whole, we are

convinced that the government did not satisfy its burden of proving

that a reasonable person with Officer Simone's knowledge and

experience would have had probable cause to arrest Ho when Ho

revoked consent based on the totality of facts and circumstances

within Officer Simone's knowledge at that time. The arrest being

unlawful, it follows that all evidence obtained pursuant to the

search incident to that arrest, including the search immediately
 

11In the alternative, the government argues for the first time

on appeal that exigent circumstances justified the continued search

of Ho's portfolio after Ho revoked his consent because Ho was about

to leave on the flight to Los Angeles. The government relies

primarily on the Second Circuit's decision in United States v.

Smith, 643 F.2d 942 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 350 (1981).

The court in Smith held that exigent circumstances justified the

warrantless search of an airplane passenger's bag because "Smith

was about to leave with the evidence in hand on the flight." 643

F.2d at 945. Unlike this case, however, the search in Smith was

supported by probable cause. Id. Because the government did not

have probable cause before Ho revoked his consent, exigent

circumstances did not justify the subsequent warrantless search of

Ho.

-14-

prior to the arrest, is inadmissible as the fruit of an unlawful

search.11 Wadley, 59 F.3d at 512. We therefore REVERSE the

district court's ruling on the motion to suppress, VACATE Ho's plea

of guilty, and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with

this opinion.

REVERSED, VACATED and REMANDED.

RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
-15-

My dissent rests on three bases: the consent revocation preprobable cause issue the majority finds dispositive was not

preserved in district court; Officer Simone had probable cause to

arrest Ho before consent revocation; and, at the very least, the

white plastic card seen, and possibly seized, by the Officer

before revocation is admissible. At a minimum, this case should

be remanded for further fact finding on the suppression

questions. 

I.

The majority starts in the right direction by agreeing with

the district court that Ho consented to the search of his

portfolio. And, it concludes that he did not revoke that consent

until after Officer Simone had seen, in its words, the front of

“a blank, white plastic card the size and shape of a credit

card.” These crucial rulings are determinative of the newly

raised issue embraced by the majority. Unfortunately, it takes a

wrong turn.

II.

This appeal presents yet another instance of a sizeable

expenditure of all too scarce judicial resources because a

suppression issue is being raised for the first time on appeal. 

This new issue should have been resolved initially in district

court, where evidence is presented and tested, instead of here,
-16-

where the majority has to base its holding, in part, on its own

experience with the use of plastic cards. As oft stated, this is

no way to run a railroad; nor is it any way to run our judicial

system. In short, the newly raised issue should be reviewed only

for plain error.

In the alternative, probable cause existed to arrest Ho at

the instant of consent revocation, thereby permitting the seizure

of the challenged evidence. In the further alternative, because

the blank plastic card had been seen, and possibly seized, before

revocation, it is admissible.

A.

The majority states that “[t]he sole issue addressed in this

Fourth Amendment warrantless search and seizure case is whether

the police officer had probable cause to arrest Al Dac Ho before

Ho revoked his voluntary consent to search his portfolio”

(revocation pre-probable cause). But, this is an alternative

claim, presented for the first time on appeal. 

First, Ho asserts, as in district court, that he did not

consent at any point. The majority easily rejects this claim. 

Ho’s alternative position -- revocation pre-probable cause -- was

not preserved in district court. Accordingly, we should review

only for plain error. There is none.

1.
-17-

As detailed by the majority,

[a] defendant normally bears the burden of

proving by a preponderance of the evidence

that the challenged search or seizure was

unconstitutional. In a case such as this

one, however, in which the officer acted

without a warrant, the government bears the

ultimate burden of proving that the officer

had probable cause.

(Citations omitted.) But, obviously, the Government’s burden is

framed by the suppression issue(s) presented by the defendant to

the district court. See United States v. Alvarado-Saldivar, 62

F.3d 697, 699-700 (5th Cir. 1995) (reviewing for plain error

factual issue raised for first time on appeal from denial of

suppression motion, and noting that where defendant failed to

develop factual basis, make argument, or secure ruling by

district court on that issue, there is no basis for appellate

court to do so), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 742

(1996); United States v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906, 909-12 (5th Cir.

1995) (reviewing for plain error issue raised for first time on

appeal from denial of suppression motion and noting that district

court did not address issue because it was not presented); United

States v. Basey, 816 F.2d 980, 993 (5th Cir. 1987) (refusing to

consider merits of ground for suppression raised at trial but not

in pretrial motion to suppress). 
-18-

Simply put, in contesting a suppression motion, the

Government is not required to advance and disprove every possible

basis on which the defendant might demonstrate an unreasonable

search or seizure. See Maldonado, 62 F.3d at 912 (if defendant

had presented in district court issue raised for first time on

appeal, testimony could have been taken, argument could have been

received, and district court could have ruled on issue); see also

United States v. Neumann, 887 F.2d 880, 886 (8th Cir. 1989) (en

banc) (declining to review ground for suppression urged on appeal

that was neither presented to, nor ruled upon by, district court,

and stating that “[i]f [defendant] had raised this ground by way

of pretrial motion, the district court could have determined the

reasonableness of the search and seizure ... [and] the government

could have ... attempted to justify the seizure” under an

exception to the warrant requirement), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 949

(1990). 

This is one of several obvious reasons why a motion to

suppress evidence “must be raised prior to trial”. FED. R. CRIM.

P. 12(b)(3). Failure to do so “constitute[s] waiver”. FED. R.

CRIM. P. 12(f). See United States v. Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733,

738 (5th Cir. 1983) (“[f]ailure to move pre-trial for

suppression, or to assert a particular ground in the suppression

motion, operates as a waiver unless the district court grants
-19-

relief for good cause shown”); United States v. Knezek, 964 F.2d

394, 397 (5th Cir. 1992) (“[a] district court does not abuse its

discretion under Rule 12(f) in denying a suppression motion

solely on the ground that the defendant failed to comply with

pretrial procedures”); United States v. Schwartz, 535 F.2d 160,

163 (2d Cir. 1976) (“failure to assert a particular ground in a

pre-trial suppression motion operates as a waiver of the right to

challenge the subsequent admission of evidence on that ground”),

cert. denied, 430 U.S. 906 (1977). 

Along this line, the district court’s local rules in effect

when the motion was filed required that “[a]ll motions except

those made during a hearing or trial which is being properly

recorded into the court record shall be made in writing.” UNIF.

LOCAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN, MIDDLE, AND

WESTERN DISTRICTS OF LOUISIANA 2.04E (1995). Those rules required

further that motions be accompanied by a memorandum containing

“(1) a concise statement of reasons in support of the motion, and

(2) citations of the authorities on which [the movant] relies or

copies of these authorities.” UNIF. LOCAL RULES OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN, MIDDLE, AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF LOUISIANA

2.05 (1995).

Likewise, we do not require, nor can we expect, district

judges to be mindreaders, or to conjure issues that might, or
-20-

should, have been raised. See United States v. Rodriguez, 15

F.3d 408, 417 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted) (“one of the obvious, and most salutary,

purposes of the plain error rule is to enforce the requirement

that parties object to errors at trial in a timely manner so as

to provide the trial judge an opportunity to avoid or correct any

error, and thus avoid the costs of reversal”); see also McCoy v.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 950 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir.

1991) (“Overburdened trial judges cannot be expected to be mind

readers. If claims are merely insinuated rather than actually

articulated in the trial court, we will ordinarily refuse to deem

them preserved for appellate review.”), cert. denied, 504 U.S.

910 (1992); Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale

Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985, 990 (1st Cir. 1988) (party has duty “to

spell out its arguments squarely and distinctly ... [rather than

being] allowed to defeat the system by seeding the record with

mysterious references ... hoping to set the stage for an ambush

should the ensuing ruling fail to suit”); Beaudett v. City of

Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (appellate courts

should not permit “fleeting references to preserve questions on

appeal”), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
-21-

It is against this backdrop that this record must be

reviewed carefully to determine whether the revocation preprobable cause issue was properly preserved in district court. 

The majority obviously concludes that it was; it states that,

[a]t the conclusion of the [suppression]

hearing, counsel for Ho argued that even if

Ho had consented to the search, he

effectively withdrew that consent by

attempting to retrieve the portfolio from

Officer Simone before the officer had

probable cause to continue the search without

Ho’s consent and without a warrant.

While this may have been what Ho’s counsel was thinking, or

intended to say, or was moving toward saying, this is not what he

said, as hereinafter shown in numbing, but nonetheless necessary,

detail. 

Ho’s motion and supporting memorandum never mention the

revocation pre-probable cause issue. Instead, those district

court papers assert that “one of the officers took the small

portfolio from Mr. Ho”, and that the Officer then 

opened the portfolio without permission and

rifled through its contents. Once in the

office, the officer thoroughly searched

everything in the portfolio. Never was

permission to search asked for, nor given.

Those papers then stated: (1) that, “[w]ithout a warrant to

search Mr. Ho’s portfolio and in the absence of probable cause

and exigent circumstances, the validity of the search depends on
-22-

Mr. Ho’s purported consent”; (2) that “[i]t is the government’s

burden to prove consent; numerous Supreme Court cases have held

that to show that consent was voluntary it is insufficient for

the prosecution to prove a mere submission to a claim of lawful

authority”; and (3) that, because he was detained by the officers

and not free to leave, Ho “could not and did not consent to a

search of his portfolio; at best he merely acquiesced in the face

of a show of authority. At worst, the portfolio was simply taken

from him.”

The Government’s response stated that, on the day of the

arrest, Ho was at the departure gate; and that, 

[n]oting that the plane was due to leave at

any moment, Lt. Simone requested consent to

search HO once again. HO freely gave his

consent. As Officer Simone was searching the

small leather folder he had observed in HO’s

possession on the previous day, he found a

blank white plastic card with a magnetic

strip on one side. Immediately after Officer

Simone located the blank white plastic credit

card, HO grabbed the leather folder out of

Simone’s hands. From his experience, Simone

knew the white plastic card to be a

counterfeit credit card.

(Emphasis added.) In short, prior to the suppression hearing, it

was the Government that presented the subject of consent

revocation. 

In its response, the Government addressed the factors for

determining whether the consent was given voluntarily, and urged
-23-

that, “[o]nce contraband was found in Ho’s possession, the

officers had probable cause to arrest” Ho, and that the search

incident to the arrest, in which the additional contraband was

found, was proper.

Ho did not file a reply to the Government’s response. 

Therefore, proceeding into the hearing, the only basis he had

raised for challenging the search and seizure was that he had not

consented at any point. As noted, the Government’s response

surfaced the fact that Ho revoked his consent during the search,

but the more narrow issue -- that of revocation pre-probable

cause -- was not before the district court at the start of the

hearing.

Prior to the start of testimony at the hearing, Ho did not

alert the district court to this issue, either in writing or

orally. Officer Simone, then Ho, testified. As developed by the

majority, the Officer stated on cross-examination that he found a

magnetic strip on the back of the card after Ho tried to regain

the portfolio. The Officer then testified that, “[w]hen [he]

first located the card, it was obvious it was some type of

contraband or something, that is when I controlled the folder”,

and admitted that, before then, “[all] he saw was a blank credit

card”. He denied that it was only upon seeing the magnetic strip
-24-

that he thought the card was fraudulent. On redirect, the

following colloquy ensued:

Q [Ho’s counsel] asked you questions about

when Mr. Ho pulled his portfolio back

from you. When you were going through

the portfolio and discovered the white

piece of plastic, did you know at this

time before he pulled it back that that

was a fraudulent credit card?

A When I removed it from the folder, I

suspected that it was.

Q Whenever Mr. Ho pulled the portfolio

back from the position when you examined

and you already discovered the white

piece of plastic, did you have probable

cause in your mind to seize the credit

card?

A Yes, I did.

Ho testified on direct examination that, when he was about

to board his return flight to Los Angeles, 

Officer Simone came up to me[,] grabbed me

from behind and just grabbed my folder. I

said, give that back to me. He said come

with me and I said, my flight is leaving

right now. He said, Come with me or -- this

is exactly -- or I’ll fuck you up right here.

Ho denied that he gave consent in any shape, form or fashion. 
-25-

Following Ho’s testimony, the court questioned Officer

Simone: 

Q ... Describe to me the paraphernalia

that you identified as being stuff that
-26-

would be used for fixing up a credit

card?

A The best way I can describe it, show you

a credit card and the piece of plastic

is the same exact size and shape as a

credit card and with no writing or

nothing of that nature on it. On the

rear of it it has a magnetic strip, just

like a credit card would.

Q How many of those did you see in his

portfolio?

A He had just one card, just one blank

one, totally blank. In other words, if

I recall correctly, it was all filled

out like a regular card with no

indication it was fraudulent until the

second officer identified it as a

fraudulent card.

Q Now, without going into any other detail

because I don’t guess it really is

pertinent, was there anything else in

that portfolio as you described it, that

caused your curiosity to arise or signal

to you in some way this was something

that could be perceived to be an

impropriety of some kind?

A Not immediately. It was just the one

blank card.

Among other things, the court questioned the Officer about

other officers (two) assisting him that day, including their

participation and proximity to Ho. The Officer testified that

the two officers would have heard his conversation with Ho.

Argument was then presented. The Government stated that a

credibility call was at hand -- it advanced consent and search
-27-

incident to arrest, Ho advanced “abusive police officers beating

up on an innocent man.” The Government noted also that, when the

Officer searched the portfolio, he “look[ed] at the white credit

card, only [saw] the front. He recognizes it as a counterfeit

credit card. Ho knows he has been had, tries to pull it back.” 

It reminded the court that “[t]he officer did testify at the

point he saw just the plain white credit card, from his

experience, he knew it was a counterfeit credit card and had

probable cause to arrest [Ho] at that time.” It did not mention

the interplay of the later observed magnetic strip.

Ho’s counsel argued that, even accepting the Officer’s

version as true, the Government lost, because the Officer did not

have probable cause to arrest. As Ho’s lawyer was apparently

beginning to address the issue of consent, the court interjected

that this was why he had questioned Officer Simone, and that he

was “interested in events of the second day [day of arrest] as

they have to do with either a verbal confrontation or physical

confrontation. And that is what is sort of on my mind here. 

That and only that.”

Ho’s attorney responded that he did not concede consent, but

the court interjected that it found Ho’s version “implausible”. 

It stated that it was “concerned about the actual event of the

taking over of the portfolio”, and that it was concerned that the
-28-

other two officers at the scene had not testified in support of

Officer Simone’s version.

As the hearing was ending, the following key colloquy

ensued:

THE COURT: I find [Officer Simone’s version]

to be quite credible. The only problem I

have with it is the actual momentary hopping

of what took place the second day. Putting

into my own consideration of it, what

obviously was pretty exceptional procedure of

the officer not to be at least somewhat

concerned about the fact that here is this

guy again. I can see how he may have been a

little fire in his eye as far as what is

going on the second day now. And the thing

that is concerning me is, I don’t find Mr.

Ho’s story plausible. I also am concerned

about the actual event of the taking over of

the portfolio. It’s just something I have

got to think about. And I will. It’s sort

of after the fact, but if -- and certainly is

clear to both counsel on both sides -- that I

guess if not concerned, at least giving some

thought to the fact that the other two

officers who could have supported the events

of the second day as they had to do with the

turning over or not of the portfolio on the

voluntary basis are not here. But I’m going

to take that as I find it. I’ve got to say

that is going to play some part in my

deliberations about the matter.

[Ho’s counsel]: I understand your concern. 

If I may, one final point. While we

absolutely don’t concede the initial consent,

giving the portfolio, according to Officer

Simone, once he opened the portfolio, at this

point he saw a plain piece of plastic. It

was at that point when Mr. Ho tried to grab

the portfolio back. It is accepted doctrine
-29-

of withdrawal of consent. That was an

unequivocal act.

THE COURT: I understand that. I think it is

in order for to you [to] point that out to

me. I take it in to consideration as well.

(Emphasis added.)

Of critical importance to whether the revocation preprobable cause issue was preserved is the fact that, although at

the end of the hearing, Ho’s counsel mentioned “withdrawal of

consent”, which the district court noted was “point[ed] ... out”,

Ho’s counsel did not identify, much less discuss, the point found

dispositive by the majority -- that when consent was withdrawn,

the Officer did not have probable cause to arrest, much less that

probable cause was lacking because the Officer had not then seen

the magnetic strip. True, as noted supra, the Government in its

argument had urged probable cause at the time of revocation; but,

again, the magnetic strip factor had not been mentioned. 

Contrary to the majority’s view, presented in its note 2, the

emphasized portions of the above quotation do not reflect that

the narrow issue found dispositive by the majority was either

presented to, or acknowledged by, the district court.

Surely, it was not incumbent upon the Government to present

that newly surfaced point, a point so lost among the competing

and shifting versions about consent that Ho’s counsel didn’t
-30-

mention it. Nor does the record contain any post-hearing followup by Ho’s counsel, such as a supplement to the motion, advancing

the issue he presses here for the first time -- revocation preprobable cause because the magnetic strip had not been seen. 

That the issue at hand was not presented adequately to the

district court is amply demonstrated by its one-paragraph order

denying the suppression motion. It stated in pertinent part:

The government presented the testimony of one

of three officers present at the time of the

alleged illegal search. This officer

testified that the defendant consented to the

search of the portfolio where the contraband

was found. [Ho] testified that the officer

grabbed the portfolio from him and rifled

through it without his consent. No other

witnesses testified. Neither of the other

officers present at the search was called to

testify as to the circumstances of the

search, which perhaps calls into question the

management of this case by the government. 

Nevertheless, considering the substance of

the testimony offered and the credibility of

the witnesses, this court is compelled to

deny the motion.

In sum, the order addresses only Ho’s contention that he

never consented to a search. The court did not address the far

more narrow revocation pre-probable cause issue. And, subsequent

to the order, Ho’s counsel did not move the court to reconsider

on the basis of this more narrow issue. He did not raise this

issue until it was presented for the first time on appeal as an

alternative position. 
-31-

On appeal, the Government acknowledges that it had the

burden to prove voluntary consent and urges that Ho so consented

to the portfolio search. It agrees that, upon giving consent, Ho

was free to withdraw it, but maintains that Ho could not

retroactively do so once the contraband was found. It then urges

that, when Ho did attempt to regain the portfolio, the Officer

had seen the card and probable cause to arrest Ho existed. 

The Government does not contend, however, that the

revocation pre-probable cause issue was not raised in district

court. But, this does not preclude our exploring this sua

sponte. See Maldonado, 42 F.3d at 912 & n.9 (reviewing issue

raised for first time on appeal from denial of motion to suppress

for plain error even though Government did not contend that issue

was not raised in district court); United States v. Pierre, 958

F.2d 1304, 1311 n.1 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (“The government’s

failure to argue the correct standard of review on appeal does

not ... prevent us from measuring the argument against the

appropriate standard of review”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 898

(1992); United States v. Vontsteen, 950 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th

Cir.) (en banc) (“no party has the power to control our standard

of review”; if neither party suggests the appropriate standard,

the reviewing court must determine the proper standard on its

own), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1223 (1992). 
-32-

As has been stated repeatedly, we require issues to be

developed in district court and not be presented for the first

time on appeal. Issues must be framed adequately and developed

factually, with supporting analysis of the concomitant points of

law, for the trier of fact, the entity making the all-important

credibility choices, which choices invariably arise on motions to

suppress, so that the legal precedent can be presented and

supplemented if necessary; so that, for reasons of fundamental

fairness, one side is not ambushed or sandbagged; and so that

judicial efficiency and economy are not sacrificed by requiring

issues to be sent back to district court to be developed more

fully. See, e.g., United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and footnote

omitted) (the rule that failure to assert a right in the trial

court likely will result in its forfeiture “is founded upon

considerations of fairness to the court and to the parties and of

the public interest in bringing litigation to an end after fair

opportunity has been afforded to present all issues of law and

fact”), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995);

United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d at 417 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted) (“one of the obvious, and most

salutary, purposes of the plain error rule is to enforce the

requirement that parties object to errors at trial in a timely
-33-

manner so as to provide the trial judge an opportunity to avoid

or correct any error, and thus avoid the costs of reversal”).

2. 

The district court’s finding that the Government met its

burden of proving voluntary consent is reviewed only for clear

error. E.g., United States v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 419 (5th

Cir. 1996). And, had the probable cause issue been properly

preserved in district court, that issue would be reviewed de

novo. Ornelas v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1657,

1659 (1996).

But, when, as here, an issue is raised for the first time on

appeal, we review only for plain error. FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b);

United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162-64. In doing so, we

analyze four increasingly familiar factors. United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); Calverley.

First, there must be an “error”; “[d]eviation from a legal

rule is ‘error’ unless the rule has been waived.” Olano, 507

U.S. at 732-33. Second, the error must be “plain”; “‘[p]lain’

[is] synonymous with ‘clear’ or, equivalently, ‘obvious.’” Id.

at 734. Third, the error must “affec[t] substantial rights”, id.

(internal quotation marks omitted); “[n]ormally, although perhaps

not in every case, the defendant must make a specific showing of
-34-

prejudice to satisfy the ‘affecting substantial rights’ prong of

Rule 52(b)”, id. at 735. The fourth, and final, factor concerns

an appellate court’s discretion; “[i]f the forfeited error is

‘plain’ and ‘affect[s] substantial rights,’ the Court of Appeals

has authority to order correction, but is not required to do so.” 

Id. A plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights should

be corrected if the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness,

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. at

736 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160

(1936)). 

As concerns Ho, even assuming “error” that “affected

substantial rights”, the error was certainly not “plain” -- it

was not “clear” or “obvious”. The issue turns on very detailed,

quickly developed, temporal facts, and as our court has stated in

the past, “[f]or a fact issue to be properly asserted as plain

error on appeal, it must be one arising outside of the district

court’s power to resolve.” United States v. Alvarado-Saldivar,

62 F.3d at 700; see also Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70

F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995) (“because the nature of the claimed

error is a question of fact, the possibility that such a finding

could rise to the level of obvious error required to meet part of

the standard for plain error is remote”).
-35-

As noted, even if these first three factors are satisfied,

we still have discretion not to reverse. The district court’s

ruling certainly does not rise to the level of those that should

be corrected, those that go to the heart of what judicial

proceedings seek to ensure, accomplish, preserve and protect --

substantial and fundamental fairness.

To the contrary, in this instance, it is our judicial system

that has been abused. This narrow question of fact, which really

should not change the result reached by the district court,

should not be permitted to undo all that has been done in the

proceedings to date. Accordingly, because there is no plain

error, the suppression ruling should be affirmed.

B.

Even assuming the revocation pre-probable cause issue is not

being raised for the first time on appeal, there was probable

cause for Ho’s arrest at the time of revocation.

Faced with two conflicting versions of the incident, the

district court made its mandated credibility choice and accepted

Officer Simone’s version that Ho “consented to the search of the

portfolio where the contraband was found”, rather than Ho’s that

“the officer grabbed the portfolio from him and rifled through it

without his consent.” The majority concludes that this consent

finding was not clearly erroneous. 
-36-

After the Officer discovered the blank white credit cardshaped plastic card, Ho revoked consent by trying to regain his

portfolio. The Officer retained control, looked at the back of

the card, saw the magnetic strip, and arrested Ho.

The majority holds that the Officer lacked probable cause to

arrest Ho when the Officer saw the card and Ho revoked consent. 

It holds also that Officer Simone’s looking at the back of the

card after Ho tried to regain the portfolio was an unlawful

search because consent had been revoked and that, therefore, the

evidence found during the subsequent search should have been

suppressed.

The majority furnishes the standard for probable cause:

whether “the totality of facts and circumstances within [Officer

Simone’s] knowledge at the moment of [revocation we]re sufficient

for a reasonable person to conclude that [Ho] had committed or

was committing an offense.” United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510,

512 (5th Cir. 1995). But, it misapplies this standard, which

involves subjective and objective components. Before reaching

the objective “reasonable person” component, the subjective

component must be considered -- “the totality of facts and

circumstances within Officer Simone’s knowledge”. Restated,

whether the Officer had probable cause to arrest Ho upon seeing
-37-

the card and consent being revoked cannot be answered in

isolation from the surrounding circumstances. 

The officers, including Simone, had conducted surveillance

the day before and had been alerted to Ho because he was walking

at an unusually fast pace when he deboarded his flight from Los

Angeles, even though it had arrived on schedule in New Orleans. 

As Officer Simone testified, Ho was walking “very, very, fast,

extremely fast .... he looked like he was walking so fast he

almost start[ed] to jog”. More important, Ho carried only a

small portfolio and had not checked any luggage; he had bought a

one-way cash ticket; he claimed to be visiting friends for two

weeks, but could or would not name them; and he claimed that his

sister would be bringing his luggage on a later flight.

Officer Simone testified that, in response to Ho inquiring

why the officers were questioning him, they stated that they were

narcotics detectives and had noticed that he had arrived on a

flight from Los Angeles and was preparing to depart the airport

without any luggage. Ho granted their request to search his

portfolio; they found nothing of note.

The next morning (day of arrest), Officer Simone was

informed that Ho had purchased a one-way cash return ticket to

Los Angeles. Ho was at the airport that morning, although he had

said he would be in New Orleans for two weeks, and Officer Simone
-38-

stopped him outside the gate area as the flight was starting to

board. Upon the Officer asking Ho why he was returning to Los

Angeles so soon, Ho explained that he had had a fight with his

sister and had decided to cut his trip short. Officer Simone

testified that Ho’s explanation “didn’t seem reasonable to me

that if he was visiting friends, why an argument with the sister

would cancel his entire plans.”

The district court found Ho’s story leading up to the search

to be implausible, and so, obviously, did Officer Simone. 

Surely, this implausibility must be considered in assessing

probable cause. But, in evaluating the Officer’s subjective

knowledge, the majority fails to give adequate weight to these

critical surrounding circumstances, instead focusing narrowly on

the moment when he saw the card. 

Even focusing on that moment, the majority underestimates

the probable cause for arrest at that point. It holds that

seeing the blank white front of the plastic card would not alone

establish probable cause; that it was established only after the

Officer saw the magnetic strip on the back, post-revocation. 

But, as the Officer testified, when he “first located the

card, it was obvious that it was some type of contraband”; at

that point, all he saw was a blank piece of plastic the size and

shape of a credit card. The Officer testified that, when he
-39-

noticed the card, he knew what it was from his experience as a

police officer because, “[i]n the past [he had] encountered those

cards and cards like that one, which were blank, had the magnetic

strips on the rear of them. And they were later determined to be

fraudulent credit cards.”

The fact that the card was blank indicated to the Officer

that it was contraband; and, even though the magnetic strip

supported his opinion, this does not diminish the existence of

probable cause upon the Officer’s seeing the card’s blank front

in those circumstances. At that moment, he thought he had

probable cause; and, the totality of the facts and circumstances

in light of his subjective knowledge were more than sufficient

for a reasonable person to reach the same conclusion. 

The majority takes judicial notice of the ubiquity of

plastic “swipe” cards in modern society; but, contrary to its

concerns, I likewise take judicial notice that these cards are

very, very seldom, if ever, blank on one side; they typically

bear some type of marking. (This intra-panel judicial

notice/fact dispute is yet another splendid example of why issues

must be timely presented to the fact finder, so that they can be

hashed out and resolved after both sides have an opportunity to

put on evidence, and so that appellate courts don’t have to grasp

at judicial notice straws, or in this instance, plastic cards.) 
-40-

Whereas it would be most unusual for such a card to be

completely blank, the fact that all the “swipe” cards mentioned

by the majority would have a magnetic strip indicates that the

“total blankness” of one side of a card of this type and shape

arouses more suspicion than a magnetic strip on the other. 

Moreover, in light of the Officer’s testimony that he found

nothing of note in the portfolio when he searched it the previous

day, it is obvious that the card was not then in the portfolio. 

This fact, when considered with the other circumstances,

including the Officer’s past encounters with fraudulent credit

cards, and Ho’s implausible explanation of why he was leaving

after only one day, after an almost 2,000-mile flight, when he

initially told officers that he planned a two-week visit,

supports a conclusion that the Officer had probable cause before

seeing the magnetic strip. Accordingly, I must disagree with the

majority that Officer Simone had probable cause only upon later

seeing the strip.

The majority unfairly criticizes the Government for failing

to elicit testimony from which to gauge the extent of Officer

Simone’s knowledge and experience in the area of credit card

fraud. We have come full circle; we are back to why Ho was

required to present the revocation pre-probable cause issue. 

Because Ho did not raise that issue in district court, the
-41-

Government had no reason to anticipate that such testimony would

become critical when the issue was later raised for the first

time on appeal. See Maldonado, 42 F.3d at 912 (“[T]he district

court ruled on the issues presented it. Had the [revocation preprobable cause] issue been presented, testimony could have been

taken, and argument received, on that issue; and the district

court would have dealt with it.”)

Along that same line, the majority posits that, because

Officer Simone was a member of the narcotics unit, whose day-today activities focused on investigating illegal drug trafficking,

the plastic card would have had much less immediate criminal

significance to him. Again, because Ho did not raise the issue

in district court, the Government was not on notice that

testimony about the Officer’s experience with credit card fraud

was necessary. Nevertheless, he testified on direct examination

that, “[i]n the past I encountered those cards and cards like

that one, which were blank, had the magnetic strips on the rear

of them. And they were later determined to be fraudulent credit

cards.” And, on cross-examination, he testified that, “in the

past I had encountered cards the same size and shape that were,

in fact, fraudulent, saw the card, I suspected it was a

fraudulent credit card.” The majority states, again most

unfairly, that the Officer was “mak[ing] an effort to backpedal”
-42-

in his testimony; but, the absence of further development of this

subject is explained by Ho’s failure to raise the issue. The

majority demands an impossible burden of proof from the

Government by requiring it to anticipate and present evidence on

an issue that was not raised in district court.

The circumstances of the encounter, in conjunction with

Officer Simone’s subjective knowledge of such blank cards being

counterfeit credit cards, meet the objective test for a

reasonable person to find probable cause for Ho’s arrest. See

Wadley, 59 F.3d at 512.

C.

It is well to remember that the Fourth Amendment protects

only against “unreasonable” search and seizure; obviously, Ho’s

consent lowered the protections offered by that Amendment. See,

e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)

(consent is “one of the specifically established exceptions to

the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause”). Toward

that end, even assuming arguendo both that the revocation preprobable cause issue was raised in district court, and that

Officer Simone did not have probable cause to arrest Ho as of

consent revocation, the white blank card seen by that time by the

Officer is admissible in evidence nevertheless, even if the other

items in the portfolio are not. (Surely, even if the card is not
-43-

admissible, Officer Simone will at least be able to testify at

trial about the front of the card he observed before consent

revocation.) The majority in its note 3 sidesteps whether at

least the card is admissible, stating that it is unnecessary to

reach this issue, even though it cites Mason v. Pulliam, 557 F.2d

426 (5th Cir. 1977), in discussing the case primarily relied upon

for this point by the Government, United States v. Jachimko, 19

F.3d 296 (7th Cir. 1994). 

We need not look beyond Mason to know that, because the

Officer saw the card prior to consent revocation, the card is

admissible. Mason granted an IRS agent’s request to remove and

examine Mason’s business records. Several days after the agent

obtained the records, he refused Mason’s demand for their return. 

Our court affirmed returning Mason’s records and all copies

made after the demand for return. Noting that consent can be

limited, qualified, or withdrawn, it rejected the agent’s

contention that, when Mason permitted him to take the papers for

examining and copying, Mason waived forever his Fourth Amendment

rights and any underlying reasonable expectations of privacy. 

Id. at 428. Our court held, however, that Mason’s withdrawal of

consent and reinvocation of his Fourth Amendment rights did “not

affect the validity of [the agent’s] actions prior to the time he

received notice that his right to retain Mason’s papers was
-44-

gone.” Id. at 429. Accordingly, it held that “[t]he district

court correctly refused to require the return of copies made

prior to the demand by Mason’s attorney.” Id. This holding

applies to the card the Officer saw (and possibly seized, as

discussed infra) prior to Ho’s consent revocation. No more need

be said. 

Even if we need to look beyond our circuit law to that of

others, Jachimko and the case upon which it relies provide a

sound basis for at least permitting the admission of the card. 

The majority erroneously distinguishes Jachimko on three bases:

that there the illegal nature of the substance (marijuana plants)

was readily apparent, unlike that of the card; that “the

government acknowledges that Officer Simone must have established

probable cause of criminal activity at the time of the revocation

of consent in order to have seized the card”; and “that, on the

facts of this case, probable cause to justify seizure of the card

mirrors probable cause to arrest Ho.” 

First, Jachimko and the case upon which it relies do not

turn expressly on obvious illegality of the item. In Jachimko,

an informant provided information to the DEA about persons

engaged in indoor marijuana cultivation, but did not know of

Jachimko’s involvement. The DEA supplied the informant with a
-45-

recording device and an alert button after he arranged to

purchase marijuana plants from a suspect. The informant and the

suspect entered Jachimko’s house; upon the alert being activated,

the agents knocked on Jachimko’s door. He opened it, but tried

to close it when the agents identified themselves. After

arresting Jachimko and the suspect, the agents searched the house

and seized marijuana plants. 

The district court granted Jachimko’s motion to suppress the

plants. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for analysis

under the “consent once removed” doctrine, applicable when “the

agent (or informant) entered at the express invitation of someone

with authority to consent, at that point established the

existence of probable cause to effectuate an arrest or search,

and immediately summoned help from other officers.” Id. at 299

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Because the case was remanded, the court commented also on

Jachimko’s consent revocation contention, noting that, “if

Jachimko attempted to withdraw his consent after [the informant]

saw the marijuana plants, he could not withdraw his consent.” 

Id. (emphasis added). In support, it relied on its decision in

United States v. Dyer, 784 F.2d 812 (7th Cir. 1986). 

After Dyer consented to his luggage being searched, agents

discovered a box. When asked what was in it, Dyer responded that
-46-

it was an automobile part, and gave permission to open the box. 

Inside, an agent found another box. Without asking for further

consent, the agent opened the second box; inside was a can in

which the agent found a clear plastic bag containing cocaine. 

On appeal, Dyer asserted that his consent extended only to

his luggage and the first box, and not to the second box

containing the cocaine. The Seventh Circuit held that, “where a

suspect does not withdraw his valid consent to a search for

illegal substances before they are discovered, the consent

remains valid and the substances are admissible as evidence.” 

Id. at 816. The admissibility of Ho’s plastic card is confirmed

by the Seventh Circuit cases.

In the alternative, even if Jachimko and Dyer turn on the

obvious illegality of the item, that does not make them

distinguishable. Officer Simone testified that, “[w]hen [he]

first located the card, it was obvious it was some type of

contraband or something”, and denied that it was only upon

finding the magnetic strip that he thought the card was

fraudulent. 

As for the second area of disagreement on this seen before

revocation subissue, unlike the majority, I do not read the

Government’s brief as “acknowledg[ing] that Officer Simone must

have established probable cause of criminal activity at the time
-47-

of the revocation of consent in order to have seized the card.” 

The Government asserts that, “once the contraband was found, Ho

could not then retroactively withdraw or limit the scope of the

search.” It then cites Jachimko, for its holding that, “where a

suspect does not withdraw his valid consent to a search for

illegal substances before they are discovered, the consent

remains valid and the substances are admissible as evidence.” 

Jachimko, 19 F.3d at 299 (emphasis in original) (citing United

States v. Dyer, 784 F.2d at 816). Restated, Jachimko looks to

pre-consent revocation “discovery”, not pre-consent revocation

“seizure”. Following these statements, the Government does state

that, “at the time Ho attempted to grab the portfolio from

Officer Simone’s hands, Officer Simone already had probable cause

to suspect the card was fraudulent and to seize the card from

Ho’s possession.” I read this as an alternative basis for the

seizure, not as a further explanation of Jachimko. 

Finally, the majority’s conclusion that, “on the facts of

this case, probable cause to justify seizure of the card mirrors

probable cause to arrest Ho” is erroneous for two reasons. 

First, the evidence indicates that, before Ho revoked consent,

the Officer had already seized the card, by removing it from the

portfolio. The Officer testified on cross-examination that,

“[w]hen [he] first located the card, it was obvious it was some
-48-

type of contraband or something, that is when I controlled the

folder.” (Emphasis added.) He was asked on redirect: “When you

were going through the portfolio and discovered the white piece

of plastic, did you know at this time before he pulled it back

that that was a fraudulent credit card?” The Officer responded,

“When I removed it from the folder, I suspected that it was.” 

(Emphasis added.)

If, as this testimony indicates, the card was seized before

Ho revoked consent, the Officer did not need probable cause to

again seize it post-arrest. (Once again, it would have been

best, to say the least, for this fact issue to have been

clarified in district court. Doubtless, it would have been, had

the revocation pre-probable cause issue been properly raised.) 

Accordingly, if Ho did not revoke his consent before the card was

seized by the Officer, his consent remains valid and the seized

card is admissible. 

The second basis for my not agreeing that “probable cause to

justify seizure of the card mirrors probable cause to arrest Ho”

is because Ho’s consent dramatically alters the landscape. I am

not willing to concede that, when an item suspected to be illegal

is seen during a consent search, it is subject to post-consent

revocation seizure only if probable cause, as that term is

defined supra, existed to seize it when first seen. My research
-49-

reveals no case on point. To the contrary, see, e.g., United

States v. Guzman, 852 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1988) (“evidence

found before [consent] revocation will not be suppressed”). In

short, probable cause is not the gateway for the admission of

evidence found during a consent search. To so hold runs contrary

to applying the Fourth Amendment within its defining

“unreasonableness” standard.

III.

I would uphold the seizure, or at least the admissibility of

the white card seen (and possibly seized) before revocation of

consent. If nothing else, I would remand to reopen the

suppression hearing, so that evidence can be received on the

uncertain or missing facts, such as whether Officer Simone seized

the card before consent was revoked. Therefore, I respectfully

dissent.