2005 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 4-19-2005 

# U SA v . C hi ld s 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 . 03-3359

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_2005

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 2005 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 . C hi ld s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1340. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1340NOT 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. 03- 3359

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA v. S T E P HE N E RI K C HI L DS A ppel l ant

ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR

T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D i s tC our tN o. 02- C R - 00778- 2) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: H on. C l ar ence C . N ew comer Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember13, 2004 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, A L ITO , and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 19, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTO t her cou rt s have h el d thata def end ant i n a si m i l ar s i tuati on rel i nq uis hes a 1 r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n t he l i m ous i ne upon fl eei ng fr om i t . See, e. g. , U ni t ed S t a t e s v . Hu r s t , 2 2 8 F . 3 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 8 n . 3 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ Wh e r e th e r e c o r d s h o ws defe ndantexpr es s l ycons ent ed t o t he vehi cl e s ear ch, and cl ear l yhad the abi l i t yand o p p o rtu n ityto ex p resslyw ith d raw h is co n sen t atan yti m e b u t fail ed to d o so , the o ff icers w er e obj ect i vel yj us t i fi ed i n cons t rui ng hi s fl i ghtnotas a w i t hdr aw al of cons ent , butas an abandonmentof hi s vehi cl e, w her ebyhe r el i nqui s hed anyr eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n t he cont ent s of the vehi cl e”) . W e nee d notr eac h t hi s i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n t hi s C i r cui t , beca us e the s ear ch w as j us t i fi ed eve n as s um i ng thatC hi l ds had s uch an e x p e c ta tio n a n d d id n o t a b a n d o n it. 2 P E R C U R I A M: St ephen Chi l ds w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a Sche dul e I contr ol l ed s ubs t ance w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e, as w el l as cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e and t o pos s es s w i t h i nt ent to d istrib u te. W e a f

f irm . B e c a u se w e w rite f o r th e p a rties o n ly , w e d o n o t d e tail th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e . C hi l ds chal l enges hi s convi ct i on on t hr ee gr ounds . Fi r s t , he ar gues thatthe l aw enfor cementoffi cer s l acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on foran i nves t i gat orys t op of the l i m ous i ne i n w hi ch he ha d been r i di ng. H e adds thateven i f the s t op w as pr oper , the 1 offi cer s vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endmentbys ear chi ng the pas s engercompar t m entof the lim o w ith o u t a w a rr a n t. W e d is a g re e . T he off i cer s had r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o bel i eve thatthe l i m o w as bei ng us ed i n a d ru g tra n sa c tio n . T h e yk n e w th a t C h ild s h a d e n ter e d C e lo tto ’s r e sid e n c e a t 2 6 1 2 S o u th C hadw i ck St r eetar ound t he t i m e w hen a man m at chi ng the des cr i pt i on of C el ot t o’ s drug supp l i er had als o en t ered the h ou se. T heyfurther kne w that C hil ds had exit ed the ho useSee M i chi gan v. L ong, 463 U . S. 1042, 1049 ( 1983) ( “the s ear ch of the pas s enger 2 compar t m entof an a ut om obi l e, l i m i t ed t o t hos e ar eas i n w hi ch a w eapon maybe pl ace d orhi dden, i s perm i s s i bl e i f the pol i ce of fi cerpos s es s es a r eas onabl e bel i ef ba s ed on ‘ 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 t he r at i onal i nfer ence s fr om t hos e fa ct s , r eas onabl yw arr ant ’ t he off i ceri n bel i evi ng thatthe s us pecti s danger ous and t he s us pectm aygai n i m m edi at e contr ol of w eapons ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R obi ns on, 119 F. 3d 663, 667 ( 8t h C i r . 1997) ( “i ti s r eas onabl e foran off i cert o bel i eve t hatan i ndi vi dual m aybe arm ed and da nger ous w hen thati ndi vi dual i s s us pect ed of be i ng i nvol ved i n a drug t r ans act i on beca us e w eapons and vi ol ence ar e fr equent l yas s oci at ed w ith d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s ” (c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d )) . 3 e sc o rte d b ya m a n w h o m C e lo tto d e sc rib e d a s h is p a rtn e r in d ru g tra f f ick in g . C e lo tto hi m s el f had t ol d t he age nt s t hatt he drugs had arr i ved atr oughl ythe s ame t i m e thatthe l i m o arr i ved. M or oever , w hen the age nt s appr oache d C hi l ds , w ho w as s t andi ng neart he o p en rea r pa ssen g er d o o r of the lim o u sine , h e e x h ibit ed sign s o f p an ic. S o o n there af ter, d esp it e A g en t M u h lberg er’s en co u rag em en t t o stayp u t, C h il d s fled . T ak en tog ethe r, t hes e fa ct s pr ovi ded a ba s i s fora r eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatthe l i m o w as bei ng us ed i n a d ru g t r a n s a c t i o n . S e e I l l i n o i s v . W a r d l o w , 5 2 8 U . S . 1 1 9 , 1 2 4 - 2 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, t h e a g e n t s we r e j u s t i f

i e d i n s e a r c h i n g th e a r e a s o f th e p a s s e n g e rc o mp a r t me n to f th e l i mo w her e guns m i ghtbe hi dden. A tt he t i m e of thi s s ear ch, s ever al i ndi vi dual s found i n the 2 li m o w ere b eing d etaine d n ea rby , an d the a g en ts w ere justi fied in f ea ri n g that, if th ere w er e w eapons i n t he l i m o, t hes e i ndi vi dual s m i ght“br eak a w ayfr om pol i ce c ont r ol and retri ev e a w ea p o n fro m [th e] a u tom o b il e.” L o n g , 4 6 3 U . S . at 10 5 1 . T h e o ff icers w ere ju s tif ie d in lo o k in g in to th e s h o p p in g b a g , s in c e it to o c o u ld h a v e c o n ta in e d a w e a p o n . T h u s , th e s e a rc h o f

th e lim o w a s le g a l.4

C h ild s n e x t cla im s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d w h e n it ref u se d to d ism iss h is i ndi ctm entbeca us e of the des t ruct i on of the t ape. A gai n, w e di s agr ee. “[S] uppr es s i on by t he p rosecut i on of ev i den ce fav orabl e t o an accused up on requestviol at es due p rocess w her e the evi dence i s m at er i al ei t hert o gui l tort o puni s hm ent . ” B r adyv. M ary l and, 373 U . S . 8 3 , 8 7 (19 6 3 ). H o w ev er, “u n less a c ri m inal d ef en d an t can sh o w b ad fa ith o n the p art of the pol i ce, fai l ur e t o pr es erve pot ent i al l yus eful evi dence does notcons t i tut e a de ni al of due pr oces s of l aw . ” A r i zona v. Y oungbl ood, 488 U . S. 51, 58 ( 1988) . Fur t herm or e, “[t ] he mer e pos s i bi l i t yt hatan i t em of undi s cl os ed i nform at i on m i ghthave he l ped the d e f e n se , o r m ig h t h a v e a f

f e c ted th e o u tco m e o f

th e trial, d o e s n o t es tab lish ‘m a ter iality ’ in the c o n sti tuti o n al sen se.” U n it ed S tat es v . A g u rs, 4 2 7 U . S . 9 7 , 1 0 9 -11 0 (19 7 6 ). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatthe audi o t ape c ont ai ned onl ym us i c and backgr ound noi s e. I tfur t herfound thatthe governm entbel i eved the t ape ha d no e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e a n d , in g o o d f a ith , retu rn e d it t o P a se u th (its rig h tf u l o w n e r). O n ly t hen w as t he t ape de s t r oy ed byacc i denti n a fl ood. T hes e fa ctual det erm i nat i ons ar e not cl earl yerr on eou s as theyare based on the tes t i m on yof b oth an ag ent and P aseut h. T hu s, C h ild s f a ils to e s ta b lis h b o th b a d f a ith a n d m a te ri a lity, a n d h is B ra d yc la im m u s t f a il. Fi nal l y , C hi l ds cannotpr evai l on hi s cl ai m thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n r efus i ng t o gi ve hi s r eques t ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on on “i nnocenti nt ent . ” Thi s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on i nacc ur at el ys t at ed thatC hi l ds coul d notbe found t o pos s es s the i nt entneede d for c o n v ictio n if

, as h e c laim e d , h e p a rticip a ted in th e d ru g tra n sa c tio n “ so th a t h e c o u ld g a in5

fur t herknow l edge i nt o t he di s t r i but i on of Ecst as yi n Phi l adel phi a and thathe coul d t hen w o rk a s a n in f

o rm a n t f o r a law e n f

o rc e m e n t ag e n c y .” A D istric t C o u rt sh o u ld a c c e p t a pr opos ed j ur yi ns t ruct i on w hen i ti s l egal l yacc ur at e, s uppor t ed bythe evi dence , and not ot herw i s e s ubs t ant i al l ycover ed byotheri ns t ruct i ons . U ni t ed St at es v. Pi t t , 193 F. 3d 751, 755- 56 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . A r efus al t o gr ants uch an i ns t ruct i on “mustbe eva l uat ed i n l i ght of the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s – i ncl udi ng al l the i ns t ruct i ons t o t he j ury , the ar gum ent s of couns el , w hethert he w ei ghtof the evi dence w as overw hel m i ng, and other re lev a n t f

a c to rs – to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t re c e iv e d a c o n stitu tio n a llyf a ir tr ial . ” K en tuck yv . W h o rt o n , 4 4 1 U . S . 7 8 6 , 7 8 9 (19 7 9 ). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterr . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgave c orr ecti ns t ruct i ons r egar di ng t he i nt entneede d forconvi ct i on underthe s t atut es i n ques t i on, and ther e i s no author i t yfort he pr opos i t i on t hatt he fe der al drug l aw s al l ow a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual , act i ng s ol el yon hi s ow n, t o engage i n t he drug tr ade s o l ong as the i ndi vi dual does s o as partof a p riv a te in v e stig a tio n o f d ru g a c tiv iti e s. C o n se q u e n tly , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly re f u s e d to g iv e th e re q u e s te d in s tru c tio n . B ylette r d a ted M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 , C h ild s s tate d th a t h e is c h a llen g in g h is s e n ten c e in l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S . C t . 73 8 (200 5). H aving de t erm i ned that i ssues w i t h respectt o B oo ker ar e best det erm i ned byt he D i s t r i ctC our ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance , w e vac at e the s ent ence and r emand f o r r e s e n te n c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th a t o p in io n .