# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 40 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

,

v.

Sh awn K. Mor ga n,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 11 , 20 13

Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A gr an d jury in di ct ed Sh awn K. Mo rg an fo r po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e

fiv e gr am s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d

(b )(1 ). Mo rg an m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce th at was se iz ed fro m hi s pe rs on an d hi s

ve hi cl e, an d st at em en ts he m ad e aft er la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers read Mo rg an hi sMir an da rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n, an d th e go ve rn m en t ap pe al s.

W e rev ers e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er, an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I.

At ap pr ox im at el y 12 :4 5 a.m

. on Apr il 17

, 20 12

, Offi cers Aram Nor m an di n an d

Jo sh Down s of th e Om ah a Po li ce Dep art m en t were pa tro ll in g 24 -h ou r bu si ne ss es in

res po ns e to ro bb eri es in th e area

. In th ei r pa tro l car, th e of fic ers ob se rv ed a ve hi cl e

wit h ti nt ed win do w s pa rk ed at th e far co rn er of a gr oc ery st or e pa rk in g lo t.

Nor m an di n te st ifi ed th at th e oc cu pa nt s of th e ve hi cl e were “ du ck ed do wn,” so he an d

Down s “ de ci de d to ge t ou t an d se e wha t was go in g on .” As th e of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed

th e ve hi cl e, th e pe rs on in th e dr iv er’s se at sa t up an d reac he d un de r hi s se at wit h bo th

ha nd s.

Nor m an di n and Down s po in te d th ei r se rv ic e weap on s at th e oc cu pa nt s of the

pa rk ed ve hi cl e an d or de red th em to sh ow th ei r ha nd s. The dr iv er, Morg an , in it ia ll y

ke pt hi s ha nd s un de r hi s se at

, bu t he co m pl ie d wit h a se co nd co m

m an d to rai se h i s

ha nd s. The of

fic ers th en rem ov ed Mo rg an an d th e ot he r two o c c up an ts fro m th e

ve hi cl e. By

th at ti m e, two m or e p ol ic e o ffi cers ha d a rri ve d a t t he sce ne

.

The of fic ers ha nd cu ffed al l th ree oc cu pa nt s an d se at ed th em on a cu r b away

fro m th e car. Nor m an d i n te st ifi ed th at he was co nc ern ed th at th ere was a weap on

un de r Mo rg an ’s se at

, so he im m ed ia te ly se arch ed th e ve hi cl e. W he n h e r e a ch ed

un de r th e dr iv er’s se at of th e ve hi cl e, Nor m an di n fel t a lo ck bo x th at was la rg e en ou gh

to co nc eal a ha nd gu n. Nor m an di n sa id th at he rem ov ed th e lo ck bo x fro m th e car an d

as ke d Mo rg an , “ W ha t is th is ? ” Mo rg an rep li ed

, “ The re’s m et h in t h e r e , a n d I ’m a

de al er.”

Bas ed on th is res po ns e, th e of fic ers ad vi se d Mo rg an of hi s rig h t s un de r

Mir an da v. Ari

zo na , 38 4 U.S. 43 6 (1 96 6)

. Nor m an di n op en ed th e lo ck bo x an d fo un d

-2

-m et ha m

ph et am ine and a co nt ai ne r wit h a whi te po wde ry su bs ta nc e. Mo rg an th en to ld

th e of fic ers th at he was a dr ug de al er fro m Frem on t, Neb r a s ka

, an d th at th e

m et ha m ph et am in e in th e lo ck bo x was for a dr ug de al in Om ah a. W he n No rm an di n

as ke d Mo rg an wha t was th e whi te po wde ry su bs ta nc e, M o r g a n rep li ed th at it was

co cai ne

. Afte r th e su bs ta nc es in th e lo ck bo x fie ld -te st ed po si ti ve fo r

m et ha m ph et am in e an d co cai ne , Nor m an di n arre st ed Mo rg an

. In ad di t i o n to th e

dr ug s, t he off

ic ers ret rie ve d $ 17 80 in cas h.

The di st ric t co ur t su pp res se d th e ph y si cal ev id en ce an d Mo rg an ’s po st warn in g

st at em en ts to la w e nf

or cem en t. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e of fic ers ex ceed ed th e

pe rm is si bl e sc op e of an in ve st ig at iv e st op un de r Ter ry v. Ohi o , 39 2 U

. S

. 1 (1 96 8)

,

an d th at Mo rg an ’s un la wfu l arre st le d di rect ly to th e se iz ur e of th e ph y si cal ev id en ce

an d th e m ak in g of th e in cu lp at or y st at em en ts

. The go ve rn m en t ap pe al s. W e co ns id er

th e qu e s t i o n o f r e as on ab le su sp ic io n de no vo an d rev ie w fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear

erro r. Orn el as v. Uni te d S ta te s , 51 7 U.S. 6 90 , 69 9 (1 99 6)

.

II.

A.

A la w en fo rcem en t of

fic er m ay de ta in a pe rs on fo r in ve st ig at io n wit ho ut

pr ob ab le cau se to arre st whe n th e of fic er “ ha s a reas on ab le su s p ic io n su pp or te d by

art ic ul ab le fact s th at cri m in al act iv it y ‘m ay be afo ot .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. So ko lo w , 49 0

U.S. 1, 7 (1 98 9) (q uo ti ng Ter ry , 39 2 U.S. at 30 ). “ W he th er th e pa rti cu la r fact s kn own

to th e of fic er am ou nt to an ob

jecti ve an d p a r t i c u l ari zed ba si s fo r a reas on ab le

su sp ic io n of cri m in al act iv it y is de t e r mi n ed in li gh t of th e to ta li ty of th e

ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a , 23 F.3 d 13 31

, 13 34 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ). Onc e

re a s o n a b le su sp ic io n is es ta bl is he d, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers m ay co nd uc t a

pr ot ect iv e se arch of a ve hi cl e’s in te rio r, whe th er or no t th e oc cu pa nt s ha ve be en

rem ov ed fro m th e ve hi cl e, be cau se “ if th e su sp ect is no t pl aced un de r arre st

, he wil l

-3

-be pe rm it te d to reen te r hi s au to m ob il e, an d he wil l th en ha ve acce ss to an y weap on s

in si de .” Mic hi

ga n v. Lo ng , 46 3 U.S. 10 32

, 10 52 (1 98 3)

. W hi le Ari zo na v. Gan t

, 55 6

U

. S. 33 2 (2 00 9)

, cl ari fie d th e li m it s of an of fic er’s au th or it y to se arch a v e h i c l e

in ci de nt to arre st aft er the arre st ee has be en se cu red

, Gan t ex pr es sl y reco gn iz ed th e

co nt in ui ng vi ta li ty of Mic hi ga n v. Lo ng , an d id en t i f ie d pr ot ect iv e se arch es of a

ve hi cl e ba se d on reas on ab le su sp ic io n of da ng ero us ne ss as an “ es ta bl is he d ex cep ti on

to th e warra nt req ui rem en t.” Id . at 3 46

.

The of fic ers h a d reas on ab le su sp ic io n to de ta in Mo rg an un de r Ter ry

. W hi le

pa tro ll in g a 24 -h ou r gr oc er y s to re in an area whe re th ere ha d be en rece nt ro bb eri es

of 24 -h ou r bu si ne ss es , th e of fic ers ob se rv ed a ve hi cl e wit h ti nt ed win do ws th at was

pa rk ed far away fro m th e st or e en tra nc e. It was la te at ni gh t, an d th ey no ti ced th at th e

oc cu pa nt s of th e ve hi cl e were at te m pt in g to co nc eal t he m se lv es

. As Nor m an di n

ap pr oa ch ed th e ve hi cl e, Mo rg an m ad e fu rti ve ge st ur es un de r hi s se at wit h bo th ha nd s.

And Mo rg an refu se d to rem ov e hi s ha nd s fro m un de r th e se at whe n Nor m an di n fir st

or de red hi m to do so

. Tak en to ge th er, th es e fact or s am ou nt to reas on ab le su sp ic io n

th at Mo rg an was en ga ge d in cri m in al act iv it y , an d a reas on ab le be li ef th at Mo rg an

was d a n g e r o u s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z- Co rt es , 56 6 F.3 d 76 7, 77 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (wh ere oc cu pa nt s of ve hi cl e di d no t pr om pt ly co m pl y wit h po li ce co m

m an d to

sh ow th ei r ha nd s, an d dr iv er m ov ed hi s arm s as if to hi de so m et hi ng , “ [t]he se fu rti ve

act io ns ga ve th e of

fic ers reas on to su sp ect

. . . th at cri m in al act iv it y was afo ot

, an d

th at th e o ccu pa nt s m ig ht be a ri sk to off ic er s afet y

un le ss de ta in ed

. . . .”).

Th e pr in ci pl e an no un ced in Ter ry ha s be en ex te nd ed to in cl ud e ve hi cl e

se arch es

. Lo ng , 46 3 U.S. at 10 49

. Mo rg an ’s fu rti ve ge st ur es un de r hi s se at as th e

of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th e ve hi cl e ga ve th em reas on to be li ev e th at th ere was a weap on

in th e ve hi cl e th at Mo rg an m ig ht acce ss whe n th e Ter ry st op en de d an d he was

pe rm it te d to ret ur n to th e ve hi cl e. Thi s ob jec t i v e l y r e as on ab le co nc ern fo r of fic er

sa fet y jus ti fie d Nor m an di n’s i mm e di at e pr ot ect iv e swe ep un de r th e dr iv er’s se at of

th e ve hi cl e. Uni te d St at es v. Smi th

, 64 5 F.3 d 99 8, 10 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Bec au se

-4

-reas on ab le su sp ic io n was es ta bl is he d, th e of fic ers ’ se arch of th e ve hi cl e’s inter ior was

pe rm it te d ev en th ou gh th e oc cu pa nt s ha d be en rem ov ed fro m th e ve hi cl e. Lo ng , 46 3

U.S. at 10 52

. Nor m an di n al so was au th or iz ed to se arch th e lo ck bo x he fo un d in th e

ve hi cl e, whi ch was la rg e en ou gh to co nc eal a weap on , be cau se a va li d sea rch un de r

Lo ng ex te nd s to cl os ed co nt ai ne rs fo un d in th e ve hi cl e’s pa ss en ge r co m pa rtment. Id

.
at 10 49 ; se e Uni te d S ta te s v. S hr an kl en , 31 5 F .3d 95 9, 9 62 -6 3 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ).

B.

The sc op e of a Ter ry st op is li m it ed

, an d an in ve st ig at or y de te nt io n “ m ay tu rn

in to an arre st if it la st s fo r an un reas on ab ly lo ng ti m e or if of fic ers us e un reas on ab le

fo rce.” Uni te d St at es v. Don ne ll y , 47 5 F.3 d 94 6, 95 3 (8 t h C i r

. 2 00 7) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n om it te d)

. In de te rm in in g whe th er a de te nt io n is to o lo ng to be jus ti fie d as

a Ter ry st op , we co ns id er w h e t h e r t he of fic ers “ di li ge nt ly pu rs ue d a m ean s of

in ve st ig at io n th at was li ke ly t o co nf irm or di sp el th ei r su sp ic io ns qu ic kl y .” Uni te d

St at es v. Sh ar

pe , 47 0 U.S. 67 5, 68 6 (1 98 5)

. The re is no br ig ht li n e ru le ; in st ead

,

“ co m m on se ns e an d or di na ry hu m an ex pe rie nc e m us t go ve rn ov er rig id cri te ria .” Id

.
at 68 5; see Uni te d S ta te s v. Pl ac e , 46 2 U.S. 6 96 , 70 9 (1 98 3)

.

W hi le of fic ers sh ou ld em

pl o y t h e le as t in tru si ve m ean s reas on ab ly av ai la bl e

to ve rif y or di sp el th ei r su sp ic i o n s , s e e Flo ri da v. Roy er , 4 60 U.S. 4 91 , 5 00 (1 98 3)

(p lu ral it y op in io n)

, th ey m ay ta ke an y ad di ti on al st ep s th at are “ reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry

to pr ot ect th ei r pe rs on al sa fet y

. . . du rin g t h e c o u r s e of th e st op .” Uni te d St at es v.

Hen sl ey , 46 9 U.S. 22 1, 23 5 (1 98 5)

. Po li c e of fic ers reas on ab ly m ay ha nd cu ff a

su sp ect du rin g th e co ur se of a Ter ry st op to pr ot ect th ei r pe rs on al sa fet y

. Smi th

, 64 5

F.3 d at 10 02 -0 3; Uni te d St at es v. Na va rr et e-Ba rr on , 19 2 F.3 d 78 6, 79 1 (8 th Ci r.

19 99 ).

-5

-In th e ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, th e li m it s of a Ter ry st op were no t ex ceed ed

whe n Mo rg an was rem ov ed fro m th e ve hi cl e an d ha nd cu ffed

, an d Nor m an di n

co nd uc te d a pr ot ect iv e swe ep of th e ve hi cl e. The of fic ers ha d es ta bl is he d reas on ab le

s u s p i c i o n an d ha d reas on to be li ev e th at Mo rg an was da ng ero us , an d Nor m an di n

se arch ed th e v eh ic le for weap on s i m m ed ia te ly after s ecu rin g M or ga n. Th e o ffi cers

di d no t us e un reas on ab le fo rce a n d d i d n o t ho ld Mo rg an fo r an un reas on ab ly lo ng

ti m e.

A Ter ry st op in vo lv es a po li ce in ve st ig at io n “ at cl os e ran ge ,” Ter ry , 39 2 U.S.

at 24 , a nd it is reas on ab le fo r of fic ers to f e a r fo r th ei r sa fet y

—ev en whe n a su sp ect

is se cu red

—b ecau se th e su sp ect wil l be pe rm it te d to ret ur n t o hi s ve hi cl e an d to

acce ss an y weap on s in si de at th e en d of th e in ve st ig at io n. Lo ng , 46 3 U.S. at 10 51 -5 2.

The of fic ers were “ act in g in a swi ftl y de ve lo pi ng si tu at io n,” Sh ar pe , 47 0 U.S. at 68 6,

an d were au th or iz ed to ta ke reas on ab le st ep s to pr ot ect t h e i r s a f e t y du rin g an d

im m ed ia te ly after t he Ter ry st op

. Hen sl ey , 46 9 U.S. at 23 5.

III.

The ne xt qu es ti on on ap pe al is whe th er th e ph y si cal ev id en ce an d Mo rg an ’s

st at em en ts la te r in th e e n c ou nt er— th at he was a dr ug de al er in Frem on t, Neb ras ka

, th at th e m et ha m

ph et am in e was fo r a dr ug de al in Om ah a, an d th at th e whi te su bs ta nc e

was co cai ne —ar e ad m is si bl e. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e ph y si cal ev id en ce

an d st at em en ts were ob ta in ed as a res ul t of an un la wfu l arre st in vi ol a ti on of th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t, an d th us we r e i na dm is si bl e fru it s of th e po is on ou s tre e un de r

W on g Su n v. Uni te d St at es , 37 1 U.S. 47 1 (1 96 3)

. As ex pl ai ne d, ho wev er, we di sa gr ee

th at th ere was an un la wfu l arre st

, so th e di st ric t co ur t’s r a t i o n a l e d o es no t jus ti fy

su pp res si on of t he ev id en ce an d s ta te m en ts

.

The go ve rn m en t do es no t ch al le ng e th e d i s tri ct co ur t’s su pp res si on of th e

st at em en t Mo rg an m ad e be fo re th e of

fic ers ad vi se d hi m of hi s Mir an da rig ht s— i.e.

,

-6

-th at th ere was m et ha m ph et am in e in th e lo ck bo x an d th at Mo rg an was a de al er. The

qu es ti on th en ari se s whe th er th e ph y si cal ev id en ce an d la te r st at em en ts m us t be

su pp res se d a s t he fru it s o f a co nc ed ed Mir an da vi ol at io n.

In Uni te d St at es v. Pat an e , 54 2 U.S. 63 0 (2 00 4)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d th at

a vi ol at io n of th e Mir an da ru le do es no t jus ti fy th e su pp res si on of ph y si cal ev id en ce

th at is th e fru it of cu st od ia l in te rro ga ti on co nd uc te d wit ho ut Mir an da warn in gs

. Id

.
at 64 2- 44 (p lu ral it y op in io n) ; id

. at 64 4- 45 (Ken ne dy, J., co nc ur rin g in th e jud gm en t).

The refo re, th e m et ha m

ph et am in e an d co cai ne Nor m an di n fo un d in th e lo ck bo x, an d

th e $ 17 80 in cas h t he off ic ers ret rie ve d, s ho ul d n ot be su pp res se d.

Warn ed st at em en ts el ic it ed aft er an in it ia l Mir an da vi ol at io n may b e

ad m is si bl e, so lo ng as of fic ers do no t pu r po se fu ll y el ic it an un warn ed co nf es si on

fro m a su sp ect in an effo rt to ci rcu m ve nt Mir an da req ui rem en ts

. Mis so ur i v. Se ib er t

, 54 2 U.S. 60 0, 60 4 (20 04 ) (p lu ral it y op in io n) ; id . at 6 22 (Ken ne dy, J., co nc ur rin g in

th e jud gm en t); Uni te d St at es v. To rr es -Lo na , 4 91 F.3 d 75 0, 75 7- 58 (8 t h Ci r. 20 07 )

(tr eat in g Ju st ic e Ken ne dy’ s co nc ur ren ce as “ co nt ro ll in g” ). W he n of fic ers ha ve m ad e

no su ch cal cu la te d e f

f or t to el ic it a co nf

es si on , Se ib er t is no t im

pl ic at ed

, an d th e

ad m is si bi li ty o f po st warn in g st at em en ts is g o v e r n e d by t he pr in ci pl es of Ore go n v.

Els ta d

, 47 0 U.S. 29 8 (1 98 5)

. Se e To rr es -Lo na , 49 1 F.3 d at 75 8; Se ib er t

, 54 2 U.S. at

62 2 (Ken ne d y, J

. , c o nc ur rin g in th e jud gm en t). Here, Mo rg an do es no t arg ue th at

Nor m an di n’s qu es ti on ab ou t th e lo ck bo x was “ a de si gn ed

, de li be rat e, in te nt io na l, or

cal cu la te d ci rcu m

ve nt io n of Mir an da ,” Uni te d St at es v. Bla ck Bea r , 42 2 F.3 d 65 8,

66 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), an d th ere is no si gn ifi can t ev id en ce th at th e of fic er de pl oyed

su ch a st rat eg y

. So Mo rg an ’s warn ed st at em en ts are ad m is si bl e if hi s waiv er of rig ht s

was vo lu nt ary, kn owi ng , and in te ll ig en t. Els ta d , 47 0 U.S. at 31 8.

Afte r th e of

fic ers read Mo rg an hi s Mir an da rig ht s, Mo rg an vo lu nt eere d th at he

was a dr ug de al er fro m Frem on t who so ld dr ug s in Om ah a. Nor m an di n th en as ke d

Mo rg an wha t was the whi te po wde ry su bs ta nc e in th e lo ck bo x, and Mo rg an rep li ed

-7

-th at it was c oc ai ne . “ [T]here i s n o co nt en ti on th at [Mo rg an ] di d n ot un de rs ta nd hi s

rig ht s; an d fro m t h i s i t f o ll ows th at he kn ew wha t he ga ve up whe n he sp ok e.”

Berg hu is v. Th omp ki ns , 13 0 S. Ct

. 22 50

, 22 62 (2 01 0)

. No ev id en ce su gg es ts th at

the se post w ar nin g st at em en ts were co erce d, co m pe ll ed

, or ot he rwis e in vo lu nt ary. W e

th eref or e co nc lu de th at Mo rg an ’s po st warn in g s ta te m en ts are ad m is si bl e.

* * *

Fo r th es e reas on s, th e or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t su pp res si ng ph y si cal ev id en ce

an d st at em en ts i s r e v e r se d, ex cep t wit h res pe ct to th e st at em en t th at Mo rg an m ad e

be fo re th e ad m in is tra ti on of Mir an da warn in gs

. The cas e is r e man de d fo r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-