Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

Office of Chief Counsel

Legal Training Division 

January 2015

THE

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

-INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS

Join THE INFORMER E-mail Subscription List

It’s easy! Click HERE to subscribe,

change your e-mail address, or unsubscribe.

THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. No one but the FLETC Legal Division will have 

access to your address, and 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 (912) 267-3429 or 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 1 INFORMER 15.
The Informer – January 2015

Case Summaries

Circuit Courts of Appeals

First Circuit

United States v. Davis: Whether an officer’s conversation with a suspect during the 

ride to the police station constituted the functional equivalent

of questioning.......................................................................................4

Hunt v. Massi: Whether a suspect had a clearly established right to be handcuffed with

his hands in front of him because of an alleged injury......................................4

United States v. Castro-Caicedo: Whether an unduly suggestive identification procedure 

 violated the defendant’s right to due process.......................5

Third Circuit

United States v. Burnett: Whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy 

 in a car used in a robbery and whether a photo array that led

 to the defendant’s identification was unduly suggestive....................6

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Price: Whether an officer exceeded the scope of a consent search of the 

 defendant’s computer.............................................................................7

United States v. Borostowski: Whether a suspect was in custody for Miranda purposes 

 during an interview by officers and whether the officers 

 lawfully searched a car not listed in the search warrant 

 and then a hard drive located inside the vehicle.........................7

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Mohr: Whether the defendant validly invoked his right to counsel

 under Miranda during an interview with officers.................................8

Reeves v. King: Whether a detention officer violates his duty to protect an inmate 

by labeling that inmate as a snitch....................................................................9

United States v. Daniels: Whether the defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights and 

 subsequent statements to officers was voluntary.............................10

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Camou: Whether a warrantless search of the defendant’s cell phone 

 was a valid search incident to arrest.................................................10

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Hood: Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk

 the defendant.......................................................................................11

United States v. Denson: Whether officers lawfully entered the defendant’s 

 house to arrest him and the seizure of firearms during

 a protective sweep...........................................................................12

2
Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Baldwin: Whether officers were required to obtain a warrant before 

 searching a duffel bag they found inside a vehicle.........................13

District of Columbia Circuit

United States v. Williams: Whether an officer lawfully conducted a traffic stop and

 whether the search of the defendant’s car was valid under 

 automobile exception.....................................................................14

♦

FLETC Informer Webinar Series

1. Law Enforcement Legal Refresher Training 

2-hour webinar presented by Bruce-Alan Barnard, FLETC Legal Division

This two-hour block of instruction focuses on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law and is 

designed to meet the training requirements for state and federal law enforcement 

officers who have mandated two-hour legal refresher training requirements. 

Date and Time: Wednesday, February 18, 2015: 2:30 p.m. EST.

To join this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/lgd0312

***************************************************************************

♦

To participate in a FLETC Informer Webinar:

1. Click on the appropriate link above 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.

5. You will now be in the meeting room and will be able to participate in the 

webinar.

6. Even though meeting rooms may be accessed before a webinar, there may be 

times when a meeting room is closed while an instructor is setting up the room.

7. Meeting rooms will be open and fully accessible at least one-hour before a scheduled 

webinar.

8. Training certificates will be provided at the conclusion of each webinar.

***************************************************************************

3
CASE SUMMARIES

Circuit Courts of Appeal

First Circuit

United States v. Davis, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23118 (1st Cir. Me. Dec. 9, 2014)

Davis, who was living with his girlfriend Hicks and her children, was on state probation for 

two felony convictions. Hicks’ mother called Davis’ probation officer and reported there 

were guns and drugs at Hicks’ house. In response, Davis’ probation officer and several other 

officers went to Hicks’ house to conduct a home visit. Davis was arrested for being a felon in 

possession of a firearm after the officers found two rifles and ammunition in the house. 

During the ride to the station, the officer and Davis engaged in a brief conversation. The 

officer testified that he asked Davis general questions concerning Davis’ probation and 

whether Davis was currently employed. At one point, Davis told the officer he was angry 

with Hicks because “he (Davis) knew the firearms were in the house and she (Hicks) was 

supposed to get those out of the house.” The officer stated that Davis’ volunteered statement 

was not in response to any question he asked. The officer further testified he did not respond 

to Davis’ statement, as Davis had not been provided Miranda warnings. 

At trial, Davis argued the statement he made to the officer during the ride to the police station 

should have been suppressed because the officer had not provided him Miranda warnings. 

The court disagreed. Miranda warnings must be provided when a person who is in police 

custody is subjected to interrogation. Interrogation can either be express questioning or the 

functional equivalent of questioning by a police officer. The functional equivalent of 

questioning are any words or actions by a police officer that the officer should know is 

reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. While it was 

undisputed that Davis was in custody, the court found that nothing suggested a reasonable 

officer would have believed that general questions concerning Davis’ probation status or 

employment would elicit Davis’ comments regarding his anger toward Hicks for failing to 

remove the rifles from the home. As a result, the court concluded the officer’s questions 

during the ride to the police station did not constitute the functional equivalent of questioning 

and Davis’ statement made during his transport to the police station did not violate his Fifth 

Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination.

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Hunt v. Massi, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23204 (1st Cir. Mass. Dec. 10, 2014)

Police officers went to Hunt’s house to arrest him on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay 

a traffic fine. The officers were aware that Hunt had been arrested approximately two months 

earlier for his involvement in a drug-trafficking ring. When an officer told Hunt he was under 

arrest, Hunt requested that he be handcuffed with his hands in front of him. Hunt explained 

that he had undergone surgery on his stomach the week before, and claimed that he could not 

4
be handcuffed with his hands behind him. An officer lifted Hunt’s shirt to look at Hunt’s 

stomach; however, the officer saw nothing that caused him to believe that Hunt needed to be 

handcuffed with his hands in front of him. When the officer told Hunt to put his arms behind 

his back, Hunt refused. A scuffle ensued, and after a short struggle, the officers handcuffed 

Hunt with his hands behind his back. Hunt sued the police officers, claiming violations of his 

federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as several state torts laws.

The district court held the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that 

Hunt had a clearly established right to be handcuffed with his hands in front of him because of 

his alleged injury. The officers appealed.

The court of appeals agreed with the officers. In this case, the court concluded a reasonable 

officer would not have believed the decision to handcuff Hunt with his arms behind his back 

constituted excessive force. The officers knew of Hunt’s serious and recent criminal history. 

In addition, the officers examined the site of Hunt’s recent surgery and determined that no 

new injury would result from handcuffing Hunt with his hands behind his back. Finally, the 

court stated that most of the cases finding excessive force incident to handcuffing involved 

injuries to the shoulder or arm. As a result, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on 

Hunt’s excessive force claims under § 1983. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

United States v. Castro-Caicedo, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24427 (1st Cir. Mass. Dec. 24, 

2014)

In 2012, a confidential informant (CI) told federal agents that in 2009 on two occasions he 

met with a person who owned a home in Colombia, who wanted to ship cocaine into the 

United States. The agents then showed the CI eleven photographs, the last of which was an 

image of Castro. Upon seeing the last photograph, the CI identified it as depicting the owner 

of the house with whom he had made the deal to ship the cocaine. At trial, over Castro’s 

objection, the government introduced the CI’s identification of Castro to the agents. Even 

though the district court held the photographs had been assembled in a manner that was 

unduly suggestive, the court held the CI’s identification was still reliable enough to present to 

the jury. The jury convicted Castro, who appealed.

The court of appeals affirmed Castro’s conviction. The court agreed the eleven photographs 

were shown to the CI in a manner so suggestive that it gave rise to the risk of an unreliable 

identification. Specifically, the court noted of the eleven photographs, the photograph of 

Castro depicted a person far older and with darker skin than any of the men depicted in the 

other photographs. As a result, the court found the use of those eleven photographs was 

designed to cue the CI to pick out Castro’s photograph.

However, even if the identification procedure was unduly suggestive, the court found the CI’s 

identification was still sufficiently reliable to allow a jury to consider it. First, the CI had a 

good opportunity to view Castro during two face-to-face conversations that lasted close to 90 

minutes. Second, the CI testified he paid close attention to Castro during these conversations. 

Third, the CI’s prior description of the man with whom he met was consistent with Castro’s 

appearance. Fourth, there was no indication that the CI was uncertain that the man he 

identified from the photographs was the man with whom he had previously met. Finally, the 

5
court found the circumstances surrounding the meetings between the CI and Castro rendered 

the four and one half year gap between the CI’s last conversation with Castro and the 

identification procedure of little importance.

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Third Circuit

United States v. Burnett, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22662 (3d Cir. Pa. Dec. 2, 2014)

Burnett and Hankerson planned to rob a jewelry store. On the day of the robbery, Hankerson 

borrowed a car from his girlfriend, Adams, picked Burnett up, and the two men drove to the 

jewelry store and robbed it. After the robbery, Hankerson and Burnett drove a short distance, 

placed stolen items from the robbery in the trunk of the car, and walked away. A short time 

later, officers discovered Adams’ car, towed it to a police garage, obtained a warrant and 

searched it. The officers found evidence linking Hankerson and Burnett to the robbery. In 

addition, Burnett was identified as one of the robbers through the use of a photo array. The

government indicted Burnett for a variety of federal criminal offenses. 

Burnett moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the trunk of the car, arguing the 

officers lacked probable cause to seize the car and that the judge did not have probable cause 

to issue the search warrant. Burnett also argued the photo array that led to his identification 

was unduly suggestive because the photos of the other individual in the array did not resemble 

him.

The court disagreed. First, Burnett failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of 

privacy in the car. Adams, the owner of the car, did not know Burnett and she did not give 

him permission to occupy her car. Consequently, Burnett did not have standing to object to 

the search of Adams’ car or its contents.

Second, the court held the photo array used by the officer was not unduly suggestive. A 

photographic array is not unduly suggestive just because certain characteristics of a defendant 

or photograph set him apart from the other persons pictured in the array. The court 

emphasized that the key issue is whether differences in the characteristics “sufficiently 

distinguish” a defendant to suggest to the witness that he is the one who committed the 

offense. In this case, the court held that all of the men in the array were of a similar age; 

there was no striking difference in the amount of heard hair each had; and the skin color of 

the members of the array were not strikingly different. The court concluded that any slight 

differences in the appearances of the men depicted in the array did not rise to the level of 

being unduly suggestive, and did not create a substantial risk of misidentification.

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

6
Seventh Circuit

United States v. Price, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22996 (7th Cir. Ill. Dec. 5, 2014)

During an interview, an officer asked Price if he would consent to a search of his laptop 

computer. Price turned the computer toward the officer and said she could look at it. The 

officer told Price she lacked training in computer forensics and that other law enforcement 

officers would have to conduct the search. Price agreed to the search and signed a Consentto-Search form. A forensic examination of Price’s laptop uncovered images and videos of 

child pornography. The government charged Price with producing and possessing child 

pornography.

Price argued the evidence found on his laptop should have been suppressed, claiming he only 

consented to a contemporaneous search of his laptop by the officer herself, not a later forensic 

examination by other officers. 

The court disagreed. First, the officer told Price she was not trained in computer forensics 

and that other law enforcement officers would have to conduct the search of the laptop. 

Second, the Consent-to-Search form that Price signed referred to a “complete search” of the 

laptop. Under these circumstances, the court held a reasonable person would have understood 

the scope of his consent was not limited to an immediate search by the requesting officer by 

herself.

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

United States v. Borostowski, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24661 (7th Cir. Ill. Dec. 31, 2014)

Federal agents obtained a warrant to search Borostowski’s house where he lived with his 

parents and sister. The warrant authorized the agents to search the premises for any digital 

media that could contain child pornography. When a team of thirteen agents arrived to 

execute the warrant, one agent detained Borostowski outside in handcuffs for approximately 

twenty-five minutes while the other agents secured the house. Once the house was secured, 

two agents interviewed Borostowski in his sister’s bedroom. The agents removed the 

handcuffs, told Borostowski he was not under arrest, and then told Borostowski they would 

like to interview him. One of the agents read Borostowski his Miranda rights and asked 

Borostowski if he understood them. Borostowski told the agent he understood his rights and 

then stated, “But I think I should have an attorney present.” The agent told Borostowski he 

was not sure what Borostowski meant and suggested they discuss the matter further. After a 

short conversation Borostowski agreed to be interviewed and signed the consent portion of the 

Miranda rights form. During the next two hours, Borostowski made numerous incriminating 

statements to the interviewing agents. At one point Borostowski said to the agents, “I 

probably should have an attorney.” However, the agents did not consider this statement to be 

an unequivocal request for counsel, and continued questioning Borostowski, who 

subsequently made additional incriminating statements. 

While Borostowski was being questioned, other agents searched the house, but were unable to 

locate a specific hard drive the agents believed Borostowski owned. An agent described the 

hard drive to Borostowski’s mother, Dollie, who told the agent she believed the hard drive 

was located in her car, which was parked in the driveway. Dollie consented to a search of her 

7
car and the agent located the hard drive. A forensic examiner searched the hard drive and 

determined that it contained child pornography. 

Borostowski was charged with several counts of possession and distribution of child 

pornography. 

Borostowski argued the incriminating statements he made to the agents should have been 

suppressed because the agents violated his Miranda rights when they continued to question 

him after he invoked his right to counsel. The district court held Borostowski was not in 

custody for Miranda purposes when the agents interviewed him; therefore, the agents were 

not required to inform Borostowski of his Miranda rights. As a result, the court declined to 

consider whether any of Borostowski’s comments to the agents were unequivocal invocations 

of his right to counsel. 

On appeal, Borostowski argued the district court incorrectly held that he was in not custody 

for Miranda purposes during the interview.

The court of appeals agreed, holding that under the circumstances, a reasonable person in 

Borostowski’s position would not have felt free to end the interview with the agents and leave 

the house. As a result, the court remanded the case to the district court so it could determine 

whether and when Borostowski ever unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. The court 

stated that if the district court determined that Borostowski invoked his right to counsel, then 

any statements Borostowski made from that point forward would be suppressed.

Borostowski also argued the agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched 

Dollie’s car, because her car was not listed on the warrant. Additionally, Borostowski 

claimed Dollie did not have authority to consent to the search of the contents of the hard drive 

located in her car. 

The court disagreed, holding the search of the hard drive was lawful based on the combination 

of Dollie’s consent to search her car and the search warrant. Although Dollie’s car was not 

included in the warrant, the court found it was essentially a “closed container” the agents 

located on the premises. Dollie’s consent authorized the agents to open that “closed 

container” and seize the hard drive. Once the agents lawfully retrieved the hard drive from 

the car, the court held the agents were authorized to search it under the authority of the search 

warrant. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Mohr, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22789 (8th Cir. Iowa Dec. 4, 2014)

Mohr agreed to be interviewed by officers regarding his contact with a minor. Prior to the 

interview Mohr signed a waiver of his Miranda rights; however, as he was walking to the 

interview room, Mohr asked his probation officer, “Should I get a lawyer at this time? . . . I 

think I should get one.” Once inside the interview room, the officers asked Mohr for his 

permission to record the interview to which Mohr replied, “I want my lawyer. . . . If you want 

this recorded I want my lawyer present.” The officers continued the interview but did not 

record it. Based in part on statements he made to the officers, the government indicted Mohr 

8
for sexual exploitation of a child and attempting to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual 

activities. 

Mohr filed a motion to suppress the statements he made during the interview, claiming that on 

two occasions he invoked his right to counsel under Miranda. 

The court disagreed. Officers are only required to stop questioning if a suspect’s request for 

an attorney is clear and unambiguous. In this case, the court held Mohr’s statement, “I think I 

should get a lawyer” was not an unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel under 

Miranda. 

The court further held Mohr’s second request for counsel was conditioned on whether the 

interview was recorded; therefore, a reasonable officer could have understood Mohr’s 

statement to mean he was only requesting a lawyer if the interview was going to be recorded.

Because the officers did not record the interview, the court concluded Mohr’s condition for 

requiring counsel was not met. Consequently, Mohr’s statement was not sufficient to invoke 

his right to counsel under Miranda. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Reeves v. King, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23577 (8th Cir. Ark. Dec. 16, 2014)

Reeves, an inmate at a state prison, provided information to correctional officers that a prison 

nurse was bringing contraband into the facility. Later, when Reeves attempted to initiate a 

conversation with Lieutenant King and another correctional officer, King told Reeves in front 

of numerous inmates, “Go ahead and snitch to the Major like you did to him on the nurse and 

he’ll get back to you later.” The following day, Reeves was transferred to another prison. 

Reeves sued King under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming King violated his Eighth Amendment

rights by calling him a snitch in front of other inmates.

The district court held King was not entitled to qualified immunity, because in the Eighth 

Circuit, a detention officer violates his duty to protect an inmate by labeling that inmate as a 

snitch. King appealed.

The Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to guarantee the 

safety of the inmates. In addition, Eighth Circuit case law imposes on prison officials a duty 

to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners and to protect prisoners from 

unreasonable conditions that pose a substantial risk of serious harm. Finally, previous Eighth 

Circuit case law has held that labeling an inmate a snitch unreasonably subjects the inmate to 

a substantial risk of harm from other inmates. As a result, the court affirmed the district court, 

as existing case law at the time of the incident sufficiently gave King fair warning that 

labeling Reeves a snitch for reporting a nurse who was bringing contraband into the prison 

would violate Reeves’ constitutional right to protection from harm. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

9
United States v. Daniels, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24556 (8th Cir. Minn. Dec. 30, 2014)

Police officers arrested Daniels for his involvement in a shooting. Before questioning 

Daniels, an officer informed Daniels of his Miranda rights. Daniels initialed the Miranda 

advisories indicating he understood his rights and signed the Miranda waiver form. Daniels, 

who was alert and responsive to the officer’s questions, told the officer he shot a handgun into 

the air the prior evening. 

The government charged Daniels with being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, the 

government submitted as evidence an audio recording of the interview and the Miranda 

waiver form signed and initialed by Daniels. The jury convicted Daniels.

On appeal, Daniels argued the district court should have suppressed his incriminating 

statements. Daniels argued his waiver of his Miranda rights and subsequent statements to the 

officer were not given voluntarily due to the combination of his intoxicated and fatigued state, 

as well as the officer’s coercive tactics. 

The court disagreed. The court found that Daniels was coherent, responsive, and alert during 

the interview and expressed no outward manifestations that would suggest his Miranda

waiver or subsequent statements were involuntary. During the brief interview, Daniels 

answered the officer’s questions coherently and intelligibly. In addition, Daniels never told 

the officers that he was confused, tired or intoxicated, nor did his actions or words suggest 

that he felt compelled to speak to the officers against his will. Finally, there was no indication 

of coercion, threats or promises by the officer that would overbear Daniel’s will during any 

portion of the interview. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Camou, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23347 (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014)

In 2009, United States Border Patrol Agents arrested Camou at an inspection checkpoint and 

charged him with alien smuggling. At the time of his arrest, the agents also seized Camou’s 

truck and cell phone, which was located in the cab of the truck. Approximately one hour and 

twenty minutes after Camou’s arrest, an agent searched Camou’s cell phone looking for 

evidence of “known smuggling organizations and information related to the case.” The agent 

did not claim the search of Camou’s cell phone was necessary to prevent the destruction of 

evidence or to ensure officer safety. The agent searched the call logs as well as the folders 

containing videos and pictures. While scrolling through Camou’s cell phone, the officer saw 

what he believed to be images of child pornography. The agent stopped his search and 

contacted the FBI to pursue child pornography charges against Camou. 

Several days later, the FBI executed a warrant to search Camou’s cell phone and discovered 

several hundred images of child pornography. The government indicted Camou for 

possession of child pornography.

10
Camou moved to suppress the child pornography images found in his cell phone, arguing the 

initial warrantless search of his cell phone by the Border Patrol agent violated the Fourth 

Amendment. 

The court agreed, holding the agent’s warrantless search of Camou’s cell phone was not a 

valid search incident to arrest, and no other exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant 

requirement applied. 

First, one of the requirements of a valid search incident to arrest is the search must be 

“roughly contemporaneous” with the arrest. In this case, the court held the agent’s search of 

Camou’s cell phone, one hour and twenty minutes after arrest, was too far removed in time 

from Camou’s arrest to be incident to that arrest. Second, the court found a string of 

intervening acts occurred between Camou’s arrest and the search of his cell phone that 

indicated the arrest was over. For example, Camou was restrained in handcuffs, removed 

from the checkpoint area to a security office, processed, and interviewed. In addition, the cell 

phone was moved from the site of the arrest to the security office. The passage of time along 

with these intervening events led the court to conclude the search of the cell phone was not 

roughly contemporaneous with the arrest and, therefore was not a search incident to arrest. 

The court further held exigent circumstances did not exist that would have allowed the agent 

to search Camou’s phone without a warrant. The search occurred one hour and twenty 

minutes after Camou’s arrest and the agent did not testify that he believed an immediate 

search of Camou’s phone was necessary to prevent the loss of recent call data. The court 

added, even had an exigency existed, the agent would have been limited to searching the 

phone’s contact list and call logs. The agent exceeded the scope of any possible exigency by 

extending the search beyond the call logs to examine the phone’s videos and photographs. 

Finally, the court held the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant 

requirement did not apply. Under the automobile exception, officers may search a vehicle 

and any containers found inside the vehicle if they have probable cause. However, the court 

held that cell phones are not containers for purposes of the automobile exception. The court 

commented that, “today’s cell phones are unlike any of the container examples the Supreme 

Court has provided in the vehicle context,” such as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, consoles, 

glove compartments or any other item or area that is capable of concealing another object.”

The court added, if cell phones were considered containers under the automobile exception, 

“officers would often be able to sift through all of the data on cell phones found in vehicles 

because they would not be restrained by any limitations of exigency or relevance to a specific 

crime.”

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

***** 

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Hood, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24239 (10th Cir. Okla. Dec. 17, 2014)

Officers suspected Milton was involved in a string of burglaries. The officers went to 

Milton’s apartment complex, located in a high-crime area of the city, and learned that Milton 

lived in apartment 108. After knocking and identifying themselves, the officers heard noise 

coming from inside the apartment, but no one answered the door. After a few minutes, the 

11
officers walked over to the apartment complex’s parking lot to inspect a car they suspected 

belonged to Milton. While the officers were in the parking lot, a resident shouted to them that 

someone was running from apartment 108. Two officers ran back to the complex and 

encountered a man, later identified as Hood. When the officers saw Hood, he was facing a 

corner of the building with his back toward the officers. Although it was an unseasonably 

warm day, Hood was wearing a winter jacket and making motions as if he was trying to 

remove something from his inside jacket pocket. Believing that Hood might be reaching for a 

weapon, the officers drew their firearms and ordered Hood to the ground. Hood went to the 

ground, but he still appeared to be grasping for something inside his jacket. When one of the

officers asked Hood if he had a firearm underneath him, Hood replied, “I don’t know.” The 

officers handcuffed and frisked Hood, removing a pistol from the right inside pocket of 

Hood’s jacket. 

The government indicted Hood for being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

Hood filed a motion to suppress the pistol seized from his jacket, arguing the officers did not 

have reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk him. Additionally, Hood argued the officers’ use 

of force during the stop was unreasonable. 

The court disagreed. First, the officers were investigating a burglary in a high-crime area. 

Second, a resident of the apartment complex alerted the officers that a person was running 

from the apartment where their suspect lived. Third, when the officers confronted Hood he 

was wearing a winter jacket, despite the warm day. Fourth, the officers saw Hood fumbling 

in his jacket pockets, which they believed might indicate he was attempting to remove a 

weapon. Under these circumstances, the court concluded the officers were justified in 

drawing their firearms and ordering Hood to the ground. 

In addition, once Hood failed to fully comply with the officers’ commands, and told the 

officers he did not know whether he had a firearm in his jacket, the officers were justified in 

handcuffing and frisking him to determine whether he was armed. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

United States v. Denson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24616 (10th Cir. Kan. Dec. 30, 2014)

Officers went to Denson’s house to serve an outstanding warrant for his arrest after Denson 

stopped reporting to his probation officer. After using a handheld Doppler radar device and 

developing other evidence, the officers believed Denson was inside the house. The officers 

entered the house and arrested Denson. While conducting a protective sweep, officers saw 

several firearms in a closet and seized them. The government indicted Denson for possession 

of a firearm by a convicted felon.

First, Denson argued the district court should have suppressed the firearms the officers seized 

from his house.

The court disagreed. An arrest warrant implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter 

a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside. In 

this case, the court held the officers established that Denson was inside the house when they 

entered. First, Denson had recently opened a utility account for the house and as far as the 

officers knew, Denson did not have another residence. Second, the officers knew Denson had 

12
not reported any earnings, which suggested Denson did not work and might be home at 8:30 

a.m. on a weekday. Third, Denson had absconded and was hiding from law enforcement. 

Fourth, the electric meter on the house appeared to be running very fast, an indication that 

someone might be inside using electrical devices. 

The court declined to rule on whether the officers’ use of the Doppler radar device violated 

the Fourth Amendment. The court found that based on the facts outlined above, the officers 

independently established Denson was inside the house. However, the court cautioned that the 

government’s warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave 

Fourth Amendment questions. 

Second, Denson argued the officers discovered the firearms as the result of an unlawful 

protective sweep.

The court disagreed. The officers knew Denson was a fugitive with a history of violent crime. 

In addition, the officers knew Denson was a gang member with violent associates. Finally, 

the officers knew a second person lived in Denson’s house who was wanted on an outstanding 

warrant. Based on these facts, the court concluded it was reasonable for the officers to 

believe Denson might not be alone in the house and that anyone else inside could be 

dangerous. 

Finally, Denson argued the officers unlawfully seized the firearms they found in the closet. 

Denson claimed at the time of the search, the officers could not exclude the possibility the 

guns belonged to the other resident of the home and not him. 

Again, the court disagreed. A convicted felon, such as Denson, violates federal law by 

actually or constructively possessing firearms. A felon constructively possesses a firearm if 

he “knowingly holds the power to exercise or control over them.” In this case, Denson listed 

himself with the utility company as the primary account holder and the officers found the 

firearms in an unlocked closet that could be accessed by either Denson or the other resident. 

As a result, the court held when the officers found the firearms, they could reasonably believe 

the guns were accessible to Denson; therefore, he constructively possessed them. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Baldwin, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23744 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 17, 2014)

During a traffic stop, an officer saw mail from the IRS not addressed to Baldwin or the other 

passenger in the vehicle, debit cards not in their names, and currency in plain view. Believing 

he had probable cause to believe Baldwin’s vehicle contained evidence of identity theft and

tax fraud, the officer conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle. The officer searched a 

duffel bag located in the vehicle, which contained evidence related to identity theft and tax 

fraud. The government indicted Baldwin on a variety of criminal offenses. 

Baldwin argued the officers were required to obtain a warrant before they searched a duffel 

bag found in the vehicle. 

13
The court disagreed. Once officers establish probable cause to search a vehicle, the officers 

may search all parts of the vehicle and any containers within it where the item for which they 

are looking might be found. In this case, the officer established probable cause to search 

Baldwin’s vehicle based on the items he saw in plain view during the traffic stop. As a result, 

the officer was not required to obtain a warrant before he searched the duffel bag located in 

Baldwin’s vehicle. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

District of Columbia Circuit

United States v. Williams, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22648 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 2, 2014)

On October 21, 2011 two police officers were conducting surveillance on a suspected drug 

house. One of the officers testified that he saw Williams walk out of the house, get into a car 

and drive away without putting on his seatbelt. The officers followed Williams in their patrol 

car and eventually conducted a traffic stop. As the officers approached the car, they saw 

Williams remove something from his jacket pocket and place it in the center console. After 

arresting Williams for driving without a license, the officers searched the center console and 

found marijuana and cocaine. 

On February 1, 2012, Williams drove to the police department where he was arrested on an 

outstanding bench warrant. When police officers identified a car parked outside the police 

station as belonging to Williams, the officers approached it. The officers smelled a strong 

odor of marijuana coming from the car and called in a drug-sniffing dog. After the dog 

alerted for the presence of drugs, officers searched Williams’ car and found crack cocaine and 

marijuana inside. 

The government charged Williams with several drug related offenses. Williams moved to 

suppress the evidence seized by the officers on October 21 and February 1. 

Concerning the October 21 stop, Williams testified he was wearing his seatbelt and the district 

court found his testimony to be credible. The court also found, however, that the officer 

credibly testified that he saw Williams driving with an unbuckled seatbelt. The court held

that even if Williams was wearing his seatbelt, it was objectively reasonable for the officer to 

believe that he saw Williams driving without his seatbelt. As a result, the court held the 

officer had probable cause to conduct the October 21 traffic stop, which led to the discovery 

of the drugs in center console. 

Williams argued the warrantless search of his car on February 1 was not valid under the 

automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Under the automobile 

exception, if a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains 

contraband, police officers are allowed to search the car without a warrant. Williams claimed 

the automobile exception did not apply because at the time of the search, his car was not 

readily mobile to him because it was parked and he was under arrest.

The court disagreed. All that is required for an automobile to be readily mobile under the 

automobile exception is that the car is “readily capable” of being used. It does not matter if 

the car, its occupants or both are in police custody. In this case, Williams’ car was readily 

14
mobile, as Williams had driven it to the police station and parked it outside. In addition, it 

was undisputed the alert by the drug-dog established probable cause that Williams’ vehicle 

contained drugs. Consequently, the warrantless search by the officers was valid under the 

automobile exception. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

15