2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-2-2009 

# U SA v . Licur t i s Whitney P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1752

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

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

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L ic ur t i s Whitney " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 319. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/319NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 1752

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. L I CU RT I S WHI T NE Y, A p p e llan t.

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00028) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr.

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

O ct ober30, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F U E N T E S a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: N ovember2, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . L i cur t i s W hi t neyappea l s hi s j udgm entof convi ct i on fol l ow i ng hi s condi t i onal pl ea of gui l t y , pur s uantt o w hi ch he r es erved the r i ghtt o chal l enge on appeal the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d e n ial o f

h is m o tio n s to su p p re ss p h y sic a l ev id e n c e a n d sta tem e n ts. W e w ill a f f i r m. I . B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w e r ecountonl ythe fa ct s es s ent i al t o our analy si s. A ct i ng on a t i p t hata vehi cl e mat chi ng the des cr i pt i on of W hi t ney ’ s w as i nvol ved i n a d ru g d e a l , De l a wa r e p o l i c e f o l l o we d W h i t n e ya n d p u l l e d h i m o v e ra r o u n d 2 : 0 0 a . m. aft erhe fa i l ed t o us e hi s tur n s i gnal . U pon appr oachi ng the vehi cl e, one of the pol i ce offi cer s not i ced w hi t e crum bs s i m i l art o coca i ne r es i due on W hi t ney ’ s cl othi ng. T he offi ceras ked W hi t neyw hatt he crum bs w er e, t o w hi ch W hi t neyr epl i ed, “I don’ tknow . ” T he off i cert hen s hi ned hi s fl as hl i ghti ns i de the vehi cl e, and not i ced a cl ear , knot t ed s andw i ch bag c ont ai ni ng an off - w hi t e cha l kys ubs t ance ( l at erdet erm i ned t o be coc ai ne) o n th e f lo o r b e h in d th e d riv e r’s se a t. A n o th e r o f f ice r sp o tted a sim ilar b a g p a rtially o b sc u re d in th e lap o f

th e f ro n t-se a t p a ss e n g e r. T h e o f f ice rs a rre ste d W h itn e ya n d h is pas s engerand tr ans por t ed them t o t he pol i ce s t at i on w her e theyw er e advi s ed of, and inv o k ed , their Mi r anda ri gh t s.3

A m ont h l at er , W hi t neyw as ques t i oned byfede r al agent s fr om the D rug E nfor cementA gency . T he G overnm entconce ded thatW hi t neyw as notM i r andi zed befor e thi s m eet i ng, s o s t at ement s W hi t neym ade c oul d notbe us ed attr i al . T w o m ont hs aft er that m eet i ng , W hitneyw as arres t ed b ythe B ureau o f A l coh ol, T ob acco, Fi rearm s, an d E x p losive s (A T F ) at his M ary land h o m e a n d ch arg ed u n d er 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), 84 1(b)( 1)( A ), and 84 6. T his t i m e W hitneyw as advis ed o f his Mi r anda r i ght s , compl et ed a w ri t t en w ai ver, and m ade ce rt ai n incr i m i nati ng st at em ents . B efor e tr i al on t he fe der al char ges , W hi t neyfi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s al l of the e v id e n c e a g a in st h im : th e c o c a in e f o u n d in h is v e h icle , sta tem e n ts m a d e d u rin g th e tra f f ic sto p p rio r to h is a rre st, a n d su b se q u e n t sta tem e n ts m a d e to th e A T F a f ter w a iv in g h is Mi r anda rig h ts. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n a n d , fo llo w in g a c o n d iti o n a l g u ilty pl ea, s ent ence d W hi t neyt o 75 m ont hs i n pr i s on. W hi t neyappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. A . W hi t neyfi r s tar gues t hatt he coc ai ne s ei zed bythe pol i ce f ol l ow i ng the tr aff

i c s t op sh o u ld h a v e b e e n su p p re ss e d . T h e D istric t C o u rt ru led th a t th e c o c a in e f o u n d in W hi t ney ’ s vehi cl e w as admi s s i bl e under t he w el l - s et t l ed rul e that‘ obj ect s s uch as w eapons orcontr aband f ound i n a publ i c pl ace m aybe s ei zed bythe pol i ce w i t houta w arr ant[bec aus e the]4

se izu re o f

p ro p e rtyin p lain v iew in v o lv e s n o in v a sio n o f p riv a c ya n d is p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le, a ss u m in g th a t th e re is p ro b a b le c a u se to a ss o c iate th e p ro p e rt yw ith c ri m in a l a c tiv ity.’ T ex a s v . Br o wn , 460 U . S. 730, 738 ( 1983) ( quot i ng P ayton v. N ew Y ork , 445 U . S. 573, 5 8 6 -58 7 (19 8 0 )). Wh i t n e ya r g u e s t h a tt h e c o v e ro f d a r k n e s s r e n d e r e d th e c o c a i n e o u to f p l a i n v i e w, a n d th a t b ysh in in g a lig h t in sid e h is v e h icle p o lice c o m m itt e d a n ill e g a l se a rc h . T h is ar gum entfl i es i n t he fa ce of t he Supr eme C our t ’ s s t at ementthat“[i ] ti s . . . bey ond di s put e that[the pol i ce of fi cer ’ s ] act i on i n s hi ni ng hi s fl as hl i ghtt o i l l um i nat e the i nt er i or of B r ow n’ s cart r enche d upon no r i ghts ecur ed t o t he l at t erbythe Four t h A m endment . ” I d. at739- 40. S o lo n g a s th e o f

f ice rs w h o a rre ste d W h itn e y“ d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t in a rr iv in g a t th e p la c e f ro m w h ic h th e [ c o c a in e ] c o u ld b e p la in ly v ie w e d ,” th e e v id e n c e is a d m is s ib le . H o rto n v . C a lif

o rn ia , 4 9 6 U .S . 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 (1 9 9 0 ). See a l so U ni t ed Stat es v. Y

am ba , 5 0 6 F .3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ T h e ‘p la in v ie w ’ d o c tr in e . . . i s bes tunder s t ood notas an i ndepende ntexce pt i on t o t he w arr antcl aus e, buts i m pl yas an e x te n s io n o f

w h a te v e r t h e p ri o r j u s tif ic a tio n f o r a n o f f ic e r’ s a c c e s s to a n o b

je c t m a yb e .” ). W hi t neyconce des t hat“an or di narytr aff i c s t op i s anal ogous t o an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on, [ a n d ] h a s b e e n h isto ric a llyre v iew e d u n d e r th e in v e stig a to ryf ra m e w o rk f

irst a rticu late d in T e rr y v . O h io , 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at11 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D el

f i nC ol i na , 4 6 4 F . 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )). U n d er T erry , “th e p o lice o f

f ice r m u st b e a b le5

t o poi ntt o s peci fi c and a r t i cul abl e fa ct s w hi ch, t aken t ogetherw i t h r at i onal i nfer ence s fr om t hos e fa ct s , r eas onabl yw arr ant ” the s t op. 392 U . S. at21. H er e, i ti s undi s put ed thatpol i ce obs erved W hi t neyvi ol at e s t at e l aw bym aki ng a tu rn w ith o u t u s in g h is tu rn s ig n a l, s o th e tr a f f ic s to p w a s p ro p e r. See Penns ylvani a v. Mi mms , 434 U . S. 106, 109 ( 1977) ( fi ndi ng “no ques t i on aboutthe pr opr i etyof” pul l i ng overr es pondentforvi ol at i ng Penns y l vani a M ot orV ehi cl e C ode) . N ordoes W hi t ney di s put e thatt he “i ncr i m i nat i ng char act er ” of the contr aband s een i n hi s carw as i m m ediat el yapp arent , or that di scoveryof the cocaine gav e ri se t o p robable cause j us t i fy i ng t he w arr ant l es s s ei zur e. T her efor e, beca us e the off i cer s w er e l aw ful l yi n a p o sitio n f

ro m w h ich to o b se rv e th e d ru g s o n th e f lo o r o f W h itn e y ’s c a r u sin g a f las h lig h t, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yfound thatthe evi dence w as admi s s i bl e underthe pl ai n vi ew doctr i ne. B . W hitneynex tchall eng es the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of h i s m oti on t o sup press in c ri m in a tin g s ta te m e n ts h e m a d e d u ri n g th e tr a f f ic s to p a n d a f

te r h is a rr e s t b yth e A T F . W hi t neycl ai m s t he s t at ement s he made dur i ng the tr aff i c s t op w er e obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 3 8 4 U .S . 4 3 6 (1 9 6 6 ), b e c a u se h e w a s n o t w a rn e d o f h is rig h t to r emai n s i l ent . T he Supr eme C our tl ong ago r ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , hol di ng i n B erkem er v . M c C a rty th a t b e c a u se o f

“ th e n o n -c o e rc iv e a sp e c t o f o rd in a rytra f

f ic s to p s,” m o to rists ar e not“i n cus t ody ” and ther efor e notent i t l ed t o Mi r anda w arni ngs . 468 U . S. 420, 4406

( 1984) . W hi t neypr opos es an exc ept i on t o t hi s w el l - es t abl i s hed rul e bas ed on the t i m e of dayand l ocat i on w her e a tr aff i c s t op t akes pl ace . Such a di s t i nct i on i s uns uppor t ed byt he l aw orl ogi c. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectW hi t ney ’ s s t r ai ned att empt t o di s t i ngui s h B erkem er and af fi r m t he admi s s i bi l i t yof W hi tney ’ s s t at ement s dur i ng the tr aff i c s t op. W hi t neyal s o ar gues t hatt he s t at ementhe gave t o t he A T F — w hi ch fol l ow ed Mi r anda w arni ngs and the exe cut i on of a w r i t t en w ai ver— s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed beca us e of the un- M i r andi zed s t at ementhe gave pr evi ous l yt o t he D E A . T hi s ar gum ent a ls o h a s b e e n s q u a re ly re je c te d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt . See O r egon v. E l s tad , 47 0 U. S. 298, 318 ( 1985) ( “[A ] s us pectw ho has once r es ponded t o unw arned y etuncoer ci ve ques t i oni ng i s nott her ebydi s abl ed fr om w ai vi ng hi s r i ght s and conf es s i ng aft erhe has been gi ven the r equi s i t e Mi r anda w arn ing s. ”). III . In su m , b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rtco m m itted n o lega l error i n d en y ing W h itn ey ’s m o tio n s to su p p re ss p h y sic a l ev id e n c e a n d sta tem e n ts, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t.