Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Office of Chief Counsel

Legal Training Division 

October 2020

THE

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

-INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS

Get THE INFORMER Free Every Month

Click HERE to Subscribe

THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. 

You will receive mailings from no one except the FLETC Legal Division.

Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with quality, useful 

and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in the law, and 

legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the author and 

do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and written by 

members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the Editor at 

FLETC-LegalTrainingDivision@dhs.gov. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer delivered directly to you via 

e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The Informer by visiting 

https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. 

This edition of The Informer may be cited as 10 INFORMER 20.
2

The Informer – October 2020

Case Summaries

Circuit Courts of Appeals

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Feliciana: Whether a U.S. Park Police officer was entitled to stop the 

defendant’s vehicle at his discretion to check whether the defendant had a valid permit

to drive a commercial vehicle on the George Washington Memorial Parkway.................................5

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Snoddy: Whether a trooper’s decision to impound and inventory the

defendant’s car was a pretext for a warrantless investigative search in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment.....................................................................................................................6

United States v. Baker: Whether it was reasonable for an officer to monitor an arrestee’s

movements by following the arrestee into a back room of the residence where the officer

saw an illegal firearm and drugs in plain view..................................................................................7

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Green: Whether the Fourth Amendment applied to the actions of a 

security guard employed by a private security company that had a contract with the

Chicago Housing Authority..............................................................................................................8

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Roberts: Whether probable cause existed to support a warrant to search the

defendant’s residence; whether the defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes during an

interview with officers while the warrant was being executed; and whether the defendant’s

incriminating statements to the officers were voluntary...................................................................9

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Ramirez: Whether the use of a ruse by FBI agents to lure the defendant

to return to his residence where agents were executing a search warrant was reasonable under 

the Fourth Amendment...................................................................................................................11

Tenth Circuit

Emmett v. Armstrong: Whether a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity in a 

lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged the officer arrested him without probable cause and 

used excessive force by deploying his taser against the plaintiff after he no longer posed 

a threat and was no longer fleeing or resisting the officer...............................................................12
3

FLETC Informer Webinar Schedule – November 2020

1. Aerial Surveillance Operations and the Fourth Amendment (1-hour)

Presented by Arie Schaap, Attorney-Advisor/Senior Instructor, Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers, Artesia, New Mexico.

This presentation will look at the issue of surveillance and what may constitute a violation 

of the Fourth Amendment. Among the cases that will be examined is the recent Federal 

District Court of Maryland decision in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police 

Department where the court denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction to 

prevent the Baltimore Police Department from implementing an aerial surveillance 

operation pilot program. We will also examine the 2018 Supreme Court decision 

Carpenter v. United States and compare these two areas of law.

Wednesday, November 4, 2020: 3 p.m. Eastern / 2 p.m. Central / 1 p.m. Mountain / 

12 p.m. Pacific

To participate in this webinar, join us at: https://share.dhs.gov/nov/

♦

2. Government Workplace Searches (1-hour)

Presented by John Besselman, Senior Advisor for Training, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Glynco, Georgia.

This webinar will examine how public employees might create a Reasonable Expectation 

of Privacy (REP) in their workplaces (computers, cars, offices, etc.), and, if so, how the 

government can intrude on that REP. This course is recommended for government 

supervisors, the IG community, and those whose duties include internal investigations. 

Thursday, November 5, 2020 – 1:30 p.m. Eastern / 12:30 p.m. Central / 11:30 p.m. 

Mountain / 10:30 a.m. Pacific 

To participate in this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/govtworksearch/

♦

3. Kalkines and Garrity Overview (1-hour)

Presented by John Besselman, Senior Advisor for Training, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers, Glynco, Georgia.

This webinar will examine these two important cases and how they affect the government's 

ability to obtain statements from its employees that may be suspected of criminal activity. 

Monday, November 16, 2020: 2:30 p.m. Eastern / 1:30 p.m. Central / 12:30 p.m. 

Mountain / 11:30 a.m. Pacific

To participate in this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/fletclgd0124/
4

To Participate in a FLETC Informer Webinar

1. Click on the link to access the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN).

2. If you have a HSIN account, enter with your login and password information.

3. If you do not have a HSIN account, click on the button next to “Enter as a Guest.”

4. Enter your name and click the “Enter” button.

♦

FLETC Office of Chief Counsel Podcast Series

Fundamentals of the Fourth Amendment – A 15-part podcast series that covers the

following Fourth Amendment topics: 

Click Here: https://leolaw.podbean.com/

♦

A Flash History of the Fourth Amendment

What is a Fourth Amendment Search?

What is a Fourth Amendment Seizure?

Fourth Amendment Levels of Suspicion

Stops and Arrests

Plain View Seizures

Mobile Conveyance (Part 1 and Part 2)

Exigent Circumstances

Frisks

Searches Incident to Arrest (SIA)

Consent (Part 1 and Part 2)

Inventories

Inspection Authorities
5

 CASE SUMMARIES

 Circuit Courts of Appeals

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Feliciana, 974 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2020) 

On October 28, 2017, Jaison Feliciana was driving his employer’s bakery delivery truck on the 

George Washington Memorial Parkway (Parkway). A United States Park Police officer stopped 

Feliciana because he believed the delivery truck was a commercial vehicle, which are prohibited 

from driving on the Parkway without a permit. Based solely on his observation of a commercial 

truck on the Parkway, the officer stopped Feliciana. 

During the stop, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana. When the officer mentioned the odor, 

Feliciana admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier in the day. After Feliciana could not 

produce a permit allowing him to operate the truck on the Parkway, the officer ordered him out 

of the truck. At this point, the officer saw what appeared to be a pipe on the floorboard. The 

officer eventually found a small bag of marijuana in Feliciana’s shoe. The government charged 

Feliciana with possession of marijuana and operating a commercial vehicle on the Parkway 

without a permit. 

Feliciana filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop. The magistrate 

judge denied the motion and the district court subsequently affirmed that ruling. Feliciana then 

appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

A traffic stop constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment that must be justified by 

reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or some other exception to the warrant requirement. 

Reasonable suspicion to initiate a brief investigative traffic stop requires “a particularized and 

objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” In Delaware v. 

Prouse, the Supreme Court held that, absent reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or 

an automobile is unregistered or that either is otherwise subject to seizure for a violation of law, 

“stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and 

registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 

In this case, the officer testified that he stopped Feliciana’s vehicle because “it was a commercial 

truck on the Parkway.” The officer did not articulate any reason to suspect that Feliciana did not 

possess the requisite permit to drive a commercial vehicle on the Parkway. The court noted that 

the existence of the permit requirement did not, by itself, amount to reasonable suspicion that a 

particular driver failed to satisfy that requirement. Consequently, the court held that absent 

articulable suspicion that Feliciana lacked the required permit, the officer was not entitled to stop 

Feliciana’s vehicle at his discretion to check whether Feliciana possessed a permit. 

The court further held that the officer was not justified in stopping Feliciana to conduct a 

warrantless administrative inspection of the vehicle. While warrantless inspections of motor 

vehicles are authorized under some statutes and regulations, the officer did not stop Feliciana 

pursuant to any statute or regulation. Instead, the officer testified that he stopped Feliciana to 

determine whether he had the requisite permit to drive on the Parkway. The court held that the 
6

officer could not justify the traffic stop by relying on a statute or regulation that was not the actual 

basis for the stop. 

The court concluded that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he 

stopped Feliciana and that he failed to establish that he was conducting a valid administrative 

inspection of the vehicle; therefore, the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment. As a result, 

the court held that any evidence obtained during the stop, including the marijuana found in 

Feliciana’s shoe should have been suppressed.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/18-4703/18-4703-

2020-09-11.pdf?ts=1599849018

*****

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Snoddy, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30512 (6th Cir. TN Sep. 24, 2020) 

On November 9, 2017, around 1:00 a.m., a Tennessee state trooper stopped Craig Snoddy for 

speeding. During the stop, the trooper discovered that there were State of Georgia warrants out 

for Snoddy's arrest, including some for drug crimes. As a result, the trooper arrested Snoddy on 

the Georgia warrants. Suspecting that Snoddy might have drugs in his car, the trooper asked 

Snoddy for consent to search the car. After Snoddy twice refused to consent to a search of his 

car, the trooper told Snoddy that he was going to have the car towed and that he was going to “do 

an inventory on the car.” 

For approximately the next twelve minutes, the trooper repeatedly asked Snoddy for consent to 

search the car, warning Snoddy that if he did not agree to a search, the car would be inventoried. 

Snoddy repeatedly denied consent. Approximately eight minutes after the arrest, while still 

attempting to obtain Snoddy’s consent to search the car, the trooper called for a tow truck. 

Approximately five minutes after calling for the tow truck, the trooper began to inventory 

Snoddy’s car. During the inventory, the trooper discovered approximately one pound of 

methamphetamine, two handguns, and a set of scales. The government subsequently charged 

Snoddy with drug and firearm offenses. 

After the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his car, Snoddy and the 

government negotiated a plea agreement. Snoddy was convicted and sentenced per the plea 

agreement. However, in the pleas agreement, Snoddy reserved his right to appeal the denial of 

his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his car. 

On appeal, Snoddy conceded it was within the trooper’s discretion to impound his car, and that 

conducting an inventory was required under Tennessee Department of Safety Policy (General 

Order 513). However, while acknowledging General Order 513, Snoddy argued that the decision 

to impound and inventory his car was a pretext for an investigative search, in violation of the 

Fourth Amendment. Specifically, Snoddy claimed that the trooper’s subjective intent from the 

moment he was arrested was to search his car for criminal evidence. 

Inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth 

Amendment. The Supreme Court has found that inventory searches of lawfully seized property 

are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to: 1) protect the owner’s property while it remains 

in the government’s custody; 2) protect the officers against claims or disputes over damaged, lost, 
7

or stolen property; and 3) protect the officers and others from potential dangers that the property 

may pose. 

Concerning vehicles, an officer’s decision to impound a vehicle must be done “according to 

standard criteria and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal 

activity” to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment. For a lawful inventory search of an 

impounded vehicle, the search must be conducted “according to standard police procedures” and

not “for purposes of investigation.” 

Here, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that, regardless of the trooper’s motivations 

and beliefs, he was going to have Snoddy’s car towed no matter what. Snoddy was the sole 

occupant of the car, and the car would have been left out on the side of the highway, near an 

intersection in the middle of the night, where it could be stolen, vandalized, or hit by another 

vehicle. While the court acknowledged that “some of the evidence calls into question whether the 

inventory search was pretexual,” the court concluded that, under the circumstances, it was 

objectively reasonable for the trooper to impound and inventory Snoddy’s car. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/19-6089/19-6089-

2020-09-24.pdf?ts=1600959615

*****

United States v. Baker, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30513 (6th Cir. KY Sep. 24, 2020) 

After reviewing Kentucky’s e-warrant system, a police officer in Madisonville, Kentucky 

discovered that a judge in a neighboring county had issued an arrest warrant a day earlier for 

Tyslen Baker for receiving stolen property. The e-warrant system indicated that Baker lived in 

Madisonville. 

Based on this information, the officer contacted a fellow officer and the two men met to arrest 

Baker at the listed address, which appeared to be a hybrid residence and pawnshop-type business. 

As the officers approached the business’s front door, a neon sign was flashing “open.” Through 

the store’s windows, the officers could see merchandise inside and a man walking around the 

store’s register area. When the officers tried to open the door, they discovered that it was locked. 

After ringing the doorbell, a man came to the front door and voluntarily let the officers inside. 

Once inside, one of the officers asked the man if he was “Mr. Baker.” The man said that he was, 

and the officer requested his driver’s license for verification. 

In response to this request, Baker walked through a door near the register, which indicated to the 

officer that Baker needed to go to another room to get his identification. The officer could not see 

what was beyond the door and was surprised by how fast Baker moved. According to the officer, 

when executing arrest warrants, officers should always maintain visual contact with arrestees to 

ensure they are not getting firearms. To keep watch of Baker, the officer followed him through 

the door without asking for his consent. The door led to a kitchen area and then another door led 

to what the officer described as an “office, bedroom, [and] entertainment area,” where Baker 

retrieved his wallet. 

As Baker handed the officer his identification, the officer saw a rifle sitting in the corner of the 

room. The officer asked Baker if he was a convicted felon and Baker confirmed that he was. At 

this point, the officer handcuffed Baker. While handcuffing Baker, the officer saw several jars in 

that appeared to contain marijuana. The officer then confirmed with his dispatch that the arrest 
8

warrant for Baker was valid. When the officer searched Baker incident to arrest, he found crack 

cocaine in Baker’s pocket. 

Afterward, officers obtained a warrant to search Baker’s residence where they found an additional 

quantity of crack cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and firearms. The government charged 

Baker with drug and firearm-related offenses. Baker filed a motion to suppress the evidence 

seized from his residence. The district court denied Baker’s motion and he appealed. 

On appeal, Baker conceded that he gave consent for the officers to enter his residence’s store area. 

However, Baker argued that his consent did not extend to the back room where the officer 

followed him when he went to retrieve his identification. As a result, Baker claimed that the 

officer was not lawfully present in the area from which he saw the rifle and jars of marijuana. 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. In Washington v. Chrisman, the Supreme Court 

recognized that “every arrest must be presumed to present a risk of danger to the arresting officer.” 

Accordingly, the court held that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment “for a police officer, 

as a matter of routine, to monitor the movements of an arrested person, as his judgment dictates, 

following the arrest.” 

In this case, when the officer learned that the man was “Mr. Baker,” he followed his department’s 

standard practice and asked Baker for his identification to verify that he was the individual listed 

in the warrant. Baker then quickly left the store area through a door and the officer followed him 

into the back room. At this point, the court held that it did not matter whether Baker impliedly 

consented to the officer’s entry into the back room or not. The court found that, by this point, the 

officer had a reasonable basis to conclude that the man was Baker; therefore, it was reasonable 

for the officer to monitor his movements inside the residence. The court added that after the 

officer lawfully entered the back room, the illegality of the rifle was immediately apparent after 

the officer learned that Baker was a felon, and the illegality of the marijuana was immediately 

apparent once the officer saw the jars. As a result, the court concluded that the officer was entitled 

to seize the rifle and marijuana under the plain-view doctrine. 

Baker further argued that the evidence seized from his residence as a result of his arrest should 

have been suppressed because the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant did not establish probable 

cause that he had committed a crime. 

Again, the court disagreed. The court declined to determine whether or not the state court judge 

properly found probable cause for the warrant to arrest Baker. Instead, the court held that the 

good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, concluding that “the affidavit seeking the 

warrant was not so recklessly bare bones as to trigger the exclusionary rule.” 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/19-5636/19-5636-

2020-09-24.pdf?ts=1600959617

*****

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Green, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29421 (7th Cir. IL Sep. 16, 2020) 

A security guard employed by AGB Investigative Services (AGB) stopped and searched Rumael 

Green at a Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) public housing unit. After seizing a handgun from 
9

Green, the security guard called the Chicago Police Department. The government subsequently 

charged Green with possession of a firearm by a felon. 

Green filed a motion to suppress the firearm, arguing that the security guard violated the Fourth 

Amendment because he lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the search. The district court 

agreed. However, the district court nonetheless denied Green’s motion because it held that the 

private security guard was not a government agent; therefore, he was not subject to the Fourth 

Amendment. Green appealed, arguing that the CHA delegated its municipal power to AGB, 

thereby making the security guard a governmental actor, bound by the Fourth Amendment. 

The Fourth Amendment does not apply “to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected 

by a private individual who is not acting as an agent of the government or with the participation 

or knowledge of any government official.” 

In this case, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that Illinois law expressly categorizes 

CHA’s police powers as distinct from its power to employ security personnel. Next, the court 

noted that the CHA contract with AGB labels AGB as an independent contractor. Finally, the 

court stated that it had previously decided the issue with regard to the actions of a CHA private 

security guard and saw no reason to depart from its earlier ruling. Specifically, in 1996, the court 

held that a private security guard, even when authorized to use deadly force in self-defense and 

arrest trespassers pending police arrival, was not a state actor for Fourth Amendment purposes. 

Consequently, the court held that the security guard in this case was contracted to perform private 

security functions and acted without any direct government involvement; therefore, the Fourth 

Amendment was not applicable. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-2330/19-2330-

2020-09-16.pdf?ts=1600266617

*****

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Roberts, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30222 (8th Cir. IA Sep. 22, 2020) 

On July 7, 2018, at approximately 4:22 a.m., two men shot another man as he emerged from a 

restaurant in Bettendorf, Iowa. After an extensive investigation, police officers obtained a warrant 

to search Martell Roberts’s residence and a 2007 Dodge Durango for firearms, ammunition, and 

other evidence connected to the July 7th shooting. 

On July 31, 2018, officers went to Roberts’s residence to execute the warrant. After no one 

responded to repeated commands from the Emergency Response Unit’s rescue vehicle, the 

vehicle’s ram was used to open the door. Afterward, Roberts came out of the house where officers 

cuffed him in plastic zip-ties and placed him behind the armored vehicle while the residence was 

secured. After securing the residence, Bettendorf Police Lieutenant Majeske uncuffed Roberts 

and suggested that they talk in another officer’s unmarked police vehicle parked less than fifty 

feet way. Roberts agreed and followed Lt. Majeske and Detective Payton to the car. 

After forty-five minutes, Lt. Majeske told Roberts two firearms were found in the residence and 

asked where he got them. Roberts said he “guessed he was under arrest now.” In response, Lt. 

Majeske told Roberts that he was not under arrest. At this point, Roberts told the officers that he 

had brought the guns into the residence from the Durango, where “Mike” had left them. Roberts 
10

then said it “sounds like I'm going to jail, regardless, I'm going to jail.” The officers did not arrest 

Roberts, but Det. Payton read Roberts his Miranda rights, despite Roberts saying “you don't have 

to.” Det. Payton asked if Roberts wanted to continue to talk. Roberts replied, “Not really,” but 

continued the interview. Roberts eventually admitted driving a man he knew as “Sko” to the 

restaurant on the night of the shooting in the Durango. Roberts added that, after the shooting, Sko 

left the firearms in the Durango. The officers arrested Roberts three hours later. 

The government charged Roberts with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. 

After being convicted, Roberts appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the 

evidence seized from his residence and the incriminating statements that he made to the officers.

Roberts first argued that the evidence seized from his apartment should have been suppressed 

because the affidavit in support of the search warrant application did not establish probable cause. 

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. A warrant is supported by probable cause if the 

totality of the circumstances demonstrates “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a 

crime will be found in the place to be searched.” Here, the court found that the affidavit supported 

the search warrant application because it included information that investigators obtained from 

witnesses at the restaurant, and from video surveillance of the restaurant parking lot at the time of 

the shooting. The court concluded that the detailed affidavit provided the warrant-issuing judge 

“a substantial basis for finding probable cause” that evidence would be located at Roberts’s 

residence and in the Durango. 

Next, Roberts argued the statements he made to the officers in Det. Payton’s vehicle while his 

residence was being searched should have been suppressed because the officers questioned him 

while he was in custody without first providing him with the required Miranda warnings. 

Law enforcement officers must administer Miranda warnings before interrogating persons in their 

custody. A person is in custody for Miranda purposes when formally arrested or when the 

person’s freedom of movement “is restricted to a degree akin to a formal arrest.” Absent a formal 

arrest, the issue of custody turns on whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s shoes would 

have felt free to end the interview. 

In this case, the court found that at the start of the questioning, Lt. Majeske and Det. Payton 

assured Roberts he was not under arrest, that he did not need to talk to the officers, and that he 

could stop at any time. After forty-five minutes, when Lt. Majeske told Roberts firearms were 

found in the residence, and Roberts said he “guessed he was under arrest now, ” Lt. Majeske 

again told Roberts he was not under arrest. Finally, at one point, Lt. Majeske suggested that they 

continue the interview at the police station. When Roberts objected, Det. Payton told Roberts it 

was up to him and the questioning continued in the vehicle. The court concluded that the officers’ 

assurances to Roberts that he was not under arrest and Roberts’s decision not to terminate the 

interview suggested that Roberts had the ability to exercise his free will and that he was not 

restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest. 

Finally, Roberts argued that his statements should have been suppressed because they were 

involuntary. Roberts argued that his statements were involuntary because the officers: 1) 

pressured him to cooperate by offering to help him avoid eviction if he cooperated; 2) made it 

clear the only way to avoid arrest and potential prosecution as a shooter was to cooperate; 3) 

confronted him with the possibility of federal charges and losing his children and his job; 4) and 

halted the arrest process during the interrogation because Roberts “had more he wants to say.”
11

A person’s statements to police officers will be deemed involuntary when they are obtained by 

“threats, violence, or express or implied promises sufficient to overbear the defendant’s will and 

critically impair his capacity for self-determination.”

The court agreed with the district court which held that none of the tactics utilized by the officers 

amounted to improper threats or promises that overbore Roberts’s will. As the officers testified, 

they believed Roberts drove the Durango the night of the shooting but did not shoot the victim. 

As a result, in the interview, they tried to persuade Roberts to become a witness against the 

shooters and put psychological pressure on him to do so. The court concluded that Roberts 

understood his rights and carefully weighed the risks and benefits of incriminating cooperation 

throughout the protracted interview, showing that his will was not overcome at any point. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/19-3249/19-3249-

2020-09-22.pdf?ts=1600788620

*****

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Ramirez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30635 (9th Cir. CA Sep. 25, 2020) 

As part of a child pornography investigation, agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) obtained a warrant to search Stefan Ramirez’s residence and any vehicle registered to him 

located at or near the residence. When agents arrived to execute the warrant, they discovered that 

no one was home and that Ramirez’s car was not there. Instead of executing the warrant, an agent 

decided to call Ramirez at work, claim to be a police officer investigating a burglary at the 

residence, and tell Ramirez he needed to return home to confirm what was taken. 

When Ramirez arrived home, the agent told Ramirez his home had not been burglarized. Instead, 

the agent explained that he had used the ruse to induce Ramirez to come home and to speak to the 

agents about the FBI’s child pornography investigation. During the subsequent forty-five minute 

interview, Ramirez confessed to viewing child pornography on his laptop. In addition, agents 

executing the warrant searched Ramirez’s car and seized two laptops and two hard drives. 

After the government charged Ramirez, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from 

his car and his statements to the agents. Ramirez argued that the agents unlawfully used a ruse to 

create the authority to seize him, his car, and obtain incriminating statements, in violation of the 

Fourth Amendment. The district court denied Ramirez’s motion and he entered a guilty plea to 

one child pornography-related offense, while preserving his right to appeal the district court’s 

denial of his motion to suppress to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the search warrant in this case gave the FBI 

limited authority to conduct searches and seizures. Specifically, the warrant only authorized the 

agents to search Ramirez’s residence, and any vehicle located at or near the residence controlled 

by Ramirez or any other occupant of the premises. Significantly, the warrant did not authorize 

the agents to seize Ramirez nor search any vehicle located away from the residence. Instead, the 

agents justified their authority to seize Ramirez under Michigan v. Summers, a case in which the 

Supreme Court held it was reasonable to detain the occupants located within the immediate 

vicinity of the premises during the execution of a search warrant. However, because Ramirez and 

his vehicle were not located at the residence when the agents arrived to execute the search warrant, 

they were not within the scope of the warrant at that time. Consequently, the court had to 
12

determine if the agents’ authority to detain Ramirez under Summers, which also brought his car 

within the scope of the search warrant, by using a ruse, was reasonable under the Fourth 

Amendment. 

Next, concerning the use of ruses, the court recognized that while law enforcement may use 

“deceit” in certain circumstances, not every ruse is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The 

court found that law enforcement’s use of deception is generally lawful when the ruse hides the 

officer’s identity as law enforcement and facilitates a search or seizure that is within the officer’s 

lawful authority. The court noted that undercover operations are a “classic example of permissible 

deception,” explaining that government agents may conceal their identities as law enforcement to 

afford a suspect the opportunity to commit an offense and detect those engaged in criminal 

activity. 

However, when law enforcement officers identify themselves as such, but mislead suspects as to 

their purpose and authority, the court will “take a closer look” at the reasonableness of the officers’ 

use of deception. The court added that officers violate the Fourth Amendment if their authority 

to access the evidence in question was obtained by “misrepresenting the scope, nature, or purpose 

of a government investigation.” 

Applying these principles, the court held that the agents’ ruse in this case “was not a permissible 

means to effect the search and seizure of Ramirez.” By posing as police officers, the agents played 

on Ramirez’s trust and reliance on their story that his home had been burglarized, which brought 

Ramirez and his car within the scope of the warrant, under Summers, when they were not 

otherwise within its scope. The court added that the agents had no acceptable government interest 

in using this ruse while the Ramirez’s Fourth Amendment interest was high because the agents 

betrayed Ramirez’s trust in law enforcement in order to lure him home to place him within the 

scope of the search warrant. As a result, the court held that the deceit employed by the agents in 

this case violated the Fourth Amendment.

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/18-10429/18-

10429-2020-09-25.pdf?ts=1601053477

*****

Tenth Circuit

Emmett v. Armstrong, 973 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2020) 

In October 2015, several police officers, including Officer Shannon Armstrong, responded to two 

911 calls reporting a fight at a wedding reception at the local Elks Club. When Officer Armstrong 

arrived, he was driving a marked police car with its blue and white lights flashing, he was dressed 

in his police uniform, and he was wearing a body camera. After Officer Armstrong exited his 

vehicle, he saw a group of people in the parking lot standing next to a pickup truck. Officer 

Armstrong ordered the group to “shut up and stand there.” After one of the men in the group, 

responded, “That’s not appropriate,” Officer Armstrong handcuffed the man and placed him in 

the back of his police car. Afterward, Officer Armstrong asked a group of people who had been 

fighting and a woman told him, “Morgan Emmett.” As Officer Armstrong walked back to the 

group near the pickup truck, one of the men, later identified as Morgan Emmett, began to walk 

away. At this point, Officer Armstrong yelled to the man, “Morgan, Morgan. Come here.” 

Emmett glanced back but continued to walk away. Officer Armstrong followed Emmett, who 
13

began running. Officer Armstrong chased Emmett for short distance, yelling “stop” once before 

catching up with Emmett, and then yelling “stop” once more as he tackled Emmett to the ground. 

After Officer Armstrong regained his footing, he stood over Emmett, who lay on his back on the 

ground. Once Emmett was on his back, he became visibly relaxed, and he made no further 

movements indicating an attempt to run or fight back. Officer Armstrong attempted to grab one 

of Emmett's arms, and Emmett asked, “What the fuck are you doing?” Officer Armstrong 

responded, “When I tell you to stop, you stop! Roll over!” Emmett giggled while looking at 

Officer Armstrong, but he did not roll over. Officer Armstrong then said, “You're going to get 

tased!” and immediately tased Emmett in the abdomen for a single, five-second taser cycle. 

Approximately ten seconds had elapsed from the time Officer Armstrong tackled Emmett to the 

time he tased Emmett. Afterward, Officer Armstrong arrested Emmett for interfering with a 

police officer. 

Emmett sued Officer Armstrong under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his constitutional 

rights to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive force. Officer Armstrong argued that 

he was entitled to qualified immunity. After the district court found that Officer Armstrong was 

entitled to qualified immunity on all of Emmett’s claims, Emmett appealed to the Tenth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

First, Emmett argued that Officer Armstrong lacked probable cause to arrest him for interfering 

with a peace officer because Officer Armstrong did not verbally identify himself a police officer. 

The court explained that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to verbally 

identify themselves before arresting someone or otherwise requiring their compliance with an 

order. Instead, the court found that, under the Fourth Amendment, it must be objectively 

reasonable for an officer to believe the suspect knew he was an officer before the officer can 

require compliance from a suspect.

In this case, the court held while Officer Armstrong did not verbally identify himself as a police 

officer, that the totality of the circumstances established that it was objectively reasonable for 

Officer Armstrong to believe that Emmett knew that he was a police officer. First, when Officer 

Armstrong arrived on scene, he was in a marked police vehicle, with the lights on and flashing. 

Second, Officer Armstrong was wearing his police uniform. Third, after arriving, Officer 

Armstrong conducted “police action” in front of the crowd by issuing commands to several 

individuals and arresting another. Based on these facts, the court found that when Officer 

Armstrong ordered Emmett to stop, and Emmett did not comply, an objectively reasonable officer 

could conclude that probable cause existed to arrest Emmett for interfering with a peace officer. 

Accordingly, the court held that Officer Armstrong was entitled to qualified immunity because 

Emmett’s arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 

Second, Emmett claimed that Officer Armstrong’s use of his taser violated Emmett’s clearly 

established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Specifically, Emmett 

claimed that it was unreasonable for Officer Armstrong to tase him without sufficient warning 

and after he had stopped actively resisting. 

The court explained that in deciding whether Officer Armstrong was entitled to qualified 

immunity, it was bound to accept Emmett’s version of the story to the extent that it was not so 

discredited by other evidence that no reasonable jury could believe it. The court added that it 

would rely on the video footage from Officer Armstrong’s body camera only where it “blatantly 

contradict[ed]” Emmett’s story. 
14

Applying this standard, the court found that under Emmett’s version of events, Emmett was lying 

on his back, relaxed and laughing and he was no longer attempting to flee or actively resisting 

when Officer Armstrong tased him. Next, applying the factors outlined by the Supreme Court in 

Graham v. Connor to Emmett’s version of events, the court held that Officer Armstrong’s use of 

the taser was objectively unreasonable. 

The court found that the first Graham factor, the severity of the crime, weighed in Emmett’s favor, 

as interfering with a police officer is a “non-severe misdemeanor” punishable under Wyoming 

law by a fine of up to $750 and no possibility of jail time. Similarly, the court found that the 

second Graham factor, the immediacy of the threat posed by the suspect to the officer or others, 

weighed in Emmett’s favor. When Officer Armstrong tackled Emmett, he had effectively 

neutralized any safety concerns arising from Emmett’s flight. Consequently, the court concluded 

the only “immediate threat” to safety was that arising from Emmett himself. However, under 

Emmett’s version of events, he was lying on his back on the ground, visibly relaxed, laughing, 

and had ceased any active resistance. In addition, the court noted that Officer Armstrong’s chase 

placed the two men away from any bystanders, and there were no allegations that any weapons 

were involved. The court found that the final Graham factor, whether the suspect was actively 

resisting arrest or fleeing, weighed in Emmett’s favor. Under Emmett’s version of events, Officer 

Armstrong tased him approximately ten seconds after tackling him; therefore, Emmett was no 

longer fleeing. In addition, although Emmett did not immediately comply with Officer 

Armstrong’s order to roll over, he was not actively resisting arrest at that point, and Officer 

Armstrong deployed his taser before he completed his “taser warning” to Emmett, which did not 

give Emmett time to modify his behavior and comply with Officer Armstrong’s orders. 

The court concluded by adding that the video footage arguably could support either Emmett’s 

version of the events or Officer Armstrong’s version of the events. However, because it was 

bound to accept Emmett’s version events and because the video evidence did not “blatantly 

contradict” Emmett’s version, the court held that it was not objectively reasonable for Officer 

Armstrong to deploy his taser against Emmett; therefore, he was not entitled to qualified 

immunity. 

The court further held that at the time of the incident, October 2013, it was clearly established 

under Tenth Circuit case law that the use of a taser by a police officer on a non-violent 

misdemeanant who is not actively resisting arrest is unreasonable. 

For the court’s opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/18-8078/18-8078-

2020-09-01.pdf?ts=1598986830

*****