Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30983

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. DON AL D BAT TI S TE D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U S D C N o . 2 :07 -C R -4 1 6 -1

B ef ore W IE N E R , G A R Z A , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Th e o r i gi nalopi ni on i n t hi s m at t erw as i ss ued by t he pan elon A ugust13, 20 09
. A pe t i t i o n f

o rr e he ar i ng i s c ur rentl y pe ndi ng be f o r e t hi s pa ne l

. The pe t i t i o n f

o rpa ne lr e he a r i ng i s g r ant e d i n pa r t
. Ac c o r di ngly, w e W I TH D RA W o ur pr e vi o us o pi ni o n a nd r e pl ac e i tw i t h t he f o l l o w i ng o pi ni o n. D o nal d Bat t i s t e ( “ Ba t t i s t e ” ) , a f o r m e rpo l i c e o f

f i c e ro f t he N e w O r l e ans P oli ce D ep a rtm en t, ch a l l en ge s h i s con victi on u n d er 1 8 U .S .C . § 24 2
. B a tti ste p le d g u iltyto tw o co u n ts : (1 ) u n r e a s o n a b le s e iz u r e o f p r o p e r tyr e s u ltin gin b o d ily United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

10, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30983

2 i nj ury; and ( 2) use of ex c es sive f

or c e dur i ng ar r es t , r es ul t i ng i n bodi l y i nj ury. F or t h e f

ol l ow i n g reasons, w e af f i rm t h e convi ct i on an d sen t en ce. I T h e convi ct i on s ati ssue arose f rom an i n vest i gati on of B att i st e condu ct ed by t h e P ubl i c I nt e gr i t y Bure au ( “ PI B” ) o f t he N e w O r l e ans Po l i c e D e pa r t m e nt ( “ N O PD ” )

. The N O P D w as c ont ac t ed bya s our c e w ho i nf or m ed t hem t hat B att i st e w as st eal i n g m on ey f rom a rres t ees. Inv est i gators f rom P IB condu ct ed
an “ i nt e gr i t y c he c k” o f Bat t i st e, em pl o yi ng a de c o y anda c o ve r tv e hi c l e . The de c o y s ati n t he f

r o nt pa s s e nge rs e ato f t he v e hi c l e i n a n o pe n- ai rpub l i c pa r ki ng l otin B att i st e’ s assi gn ed di st ri ct , w i t h a survei l l an ce van park ed i n si de the l ot appro xi m at el y 50 fee taw ay f r om t he dec oy. T h e decoy w as g iven $ 510 in cash b y t h e N O P D

. Th e m on ey w as di vi ded in t o t h r e e p a c k e ts : o n e w a s p la c e d in th e d e c o y ’ s le ft fr o n t s h ir t p o c k e t, o n e in t he r i ghtf

r o ntpa nt s po c ke t , a nd t he o t he ri n t h e lef t r e arpa nt s po c ke t
. The de c o y w as t o l d t o ac tdr unk. H e w as al s o i ns t r uc t e d t o , w he n co nf r o nt e d byt he po l i c e , puthi s ha nds i n t he ai r , notm ak e any s udd e n m o ve s , nott o a r gue , a nd
no tt o do a nyt hi ng com bative o ra gg r e s s ive . The i nve s t i ga t o r s s e tup a survei l l an ce c am era t o capture t h e encou n t er. B att i st e a n d h i s part n er w ere d is p a tc h e d to th e s u r v e ille d lo c a tio n in o r d e rto re s p o n d to a d r u n k m a le h a r a s s in gw o m e n in th e a r e a . The fac t s of

t he i nt e r ac t i o n be t w e e n B at t i s t e and t he dec o y ap pe ari n t he
v id e o tap e a n d w ere sw orn to byB a tti ste i n h i s gu i l ty p l ea . B a tti ste a n d h is pa r t ne ra r r ive d a tt he s c e ne . Bat t i st e ex i t e d hi s v e hi c l e a nd wal ke d t o t he d rive r’ s si d e of th e cov ert ve h i cl e, w h i ch w a s em p ty, w h i l e h i s p a rtn er w a l k ed to th e p a sse n ge r si d e w h ere th e dec oy w a s sea ted

. B a tti ste th en w a l k ed aro u n d to t he p as s e nge rs i de a nd i nt e r po s e d hi m s e l f i n f r o nto f hi s pa r t ne r . Af

t e rt he d e c o yw a s o r d e r e d o u t o f th e v e h ic le , B a tt i s t e t u r n e d h im a r o u n d (s o th a t h is ba c k was t o Ba t t i s t e ) , a nd s t r uc k t he de c o y i n t he b ac k wi t h hi s e lbo w . TheN o. 08- 30983

3 de c o y c r i e d o uta nd d r o ppe d t o hi s kne e s . Bat t i s t e then h andc uf fe d hi m a nd
w al ked hi m t o t h e p ol i ce veh i cl e, tel l i n g h i s p art n er to search t h e covertveh i cl e. B ef ore pl aci n g t h e decoy i n t h e pol i ce c ar, B att i st e searched hi m an d extract ed t h e mo n e yt h a twa s i n t h e d e c o y ’ s p a n t s p o c k e t s , p l a c i n ga l lo f i ti n h i s o wn po c ke t
. H e t he n put t he de c o y i n t he ba c k s e at o f t he po l i c e c ar . Af t e r a short
c o nve r s at i o n wi t h a s upe r vi s o rw ho a ppe ar e d on t he s c e ne a nd t he n de pa r t e d, Bat t i s t e w al ke d o ut o f vi e w o f t he s ur ve i l l anc e c am e r a. A PI B i nve s t i gator on t he s c e ne , w ho w as abl e t o o bs e r ve Bat t i s t e ’ s a c t i o ns , s aw B at t i s t e t ak e t he
m o ne y f r o m hi s po c ke ta nd d ivi de i ti nt o t w o pa c ke t s , pl ac i ng o ne in hi s f r o nt pa nt s po c ke ta nd t he o t he ri n hi s r e arpa nt s po c ke t
. H e t he n r et u rned t o t he p o l i c e v e h i c l e , a n d h e a n d h i s pa r t n e rdr o v e t h e de c o yt o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . At th e sta ti on , B a tti ste’ s p a rtn er too k the de coyi n side for b oo k i n g w h i l e B a tti ste
rem ai n ed i n t h e pol i ce c ar. P IB i n vest i gators l aterdi scovered t h e decoy to b e m i ssi n g 251 dol l ars of t h e 5 10 dol l ars that h ad b een p l an t ed. T h e d ecoy a l so reported tha th e h ad hu rt hi s kne e w he n he w as kno c ke d t o t he g r o und byBat t i s t e a nd t hat i t w as pa i nf ul f o rhi m t o w al k. B att i st e w as a rres t ed af t er com pl et i n g h i s sh i f t
. H e w ai vedhi s Mi r anda ri gh t s an d confes sed t o tak i n g t h e m on ey. A f t er h e pl ed gu i l t y t o both coun t s of th e in d ic tm e n t , t h e d is tr ic t ju d g e s e n te n c e d h im to 5 7 m o n th s in p r is o n . T h is ap pe alf o l l o w e d. II B a tt is te a r g u e s th a t t h e r e is n o t a s u ffic ie n t fa c tu a l b a s is to s u p p o r t h is gu i l ty p l ea . B eca u s e t h is a rg u m en t i s ra i sed f or th e fi rst ti m e on ap p ea l , bo th p a r tie s a g r e e th a t th is c o u r t re v ie w s fo r p l a i n e r r o r . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. L on d on , 56 8 F

. 3 d 55 3 , 55 8 (5th C i r. 20 0 9 ). U n d er p l a i n erro r rev i ew , B a tti ste
m u stshow err or t h at i s cl ear or obvious an d t h at af fect s hi s s u bstanti alri gh t s. Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 538 F

. 3d 3 24, 3 32 ( 5th C i r. 2 008 )

. T o show t h at t h e err orN o. 08- 30983

Th e st atutest ate s: 1 Who ever, under color of anylaw, statute, ordin an ce, regulation , or custom, willfully subj ects anyperson in anyState, Territory , C ommonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of anyri ghts, privile ge s, or immunities secure d orprotectedbyth e Con stitutionor laws of t heU nited States, orto differe nt punishments, pains, or penaltie s, onaccount of such personbeing an alien, or by reaso n of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citi zen s, shall be fine d u nd er this titleor imprisoned not more thanone year, or both; and if bodily inj ury results fro m theacts committedin violation of this sectio n or if suchacts inclu de the u se, attempted use, or thre atened u se of a dangerou s weapo n, explosives, orfire, sh allbefined under this title or i mprisoned not more thantenyears, or b oth ; a ndi f d eathresults fro m theacts committedin violation of this sectio n or if such acts includekidn appin g or an attempt to ki dnap, aggravated sexu al ab use, or an attempt to commit a ggravated sexu al abu se, or an attempt to kill, shall b e fined un der this title , or imprisoned for anyter m of ye ars or for life, or b oth, or may be sente nced to de ath

. 18 U.S.C. §24 2. 4 a ff ected L on d on ' s su b stan ti a lri gh ts , h e “m u st sh ow a re a son a b l e p rob a b i l i ty th a t, bu t f

or th e err or, h e w ou l d n ot h a ve en tered the plea

. ” L on d on , 568 F. 3d
a t 5 5 8
. If

s u c h a n e r r o ris s h o w n , th is co u r t h a s d is c r e tio n to c o r r e c t it , b u t o n ly i f t h e err or seri ou sl y af fect s t h e fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . Id

. at559. C ou n t1 of

B att i st e’ s i n di ct m en tal l eges t h at B att i st e:
w h i l e act i n g u n der col or of l aw as a com m iss ion e d o f f i cer of t h e N ew O rl ean s Poli ce D epa rt m en tdu ri n g an i n vest i gative st op, st ol e U n i t ed S ta te s c u r r e n c y fr o m a p e r s o n k n o w n to th e G r a n d J u r y , th e r e b yw illfu lly d e p r iv in gth a t p e r s o n o f th e r ig h t.
. . n o t to b e s u b je c te d to u n r e a s o n a b le s e iz u r e o f p r o p e r ty , w ith th e o ffe n s e re s u ltin gin b o d ilyinju r y ; a ll in vi ol at i on o f

Ti t l e 1 8, U ni t ed St at es C ode , Sec t i on 242. U nde r1 8 U

. S. C. § 2 42 , t he g o ve r nm e ntm us tp rove t hatt he de fe nda nt act ed w i l l f

u l l y an d un der col or of l aw t o dep rive a person of a federal l y protec t ed ri gh t. Un i t ed S t ate s v. L an i er , 520 U

. S. 259, 264 ( 1997)

. Thu s, B a tti st e w as

1
con victed u n d er § 2 4 2 of a n u n l a w ful sei zu re u n d er th e F ou rth A m en d m en t,
c o m m it t e d u n d e rc o lo ro f l a w . B a t t i s t e a r g u e s th a tth e s e iz u r e o f t h e d e c o y ’s
m o ne y di d no tvi o l at e t he F o ur t h A m e ndm e ntf o rt w o r e as o ns : t he s e i z ur e o f t he decoy’ s m on ey w as reason able as part of t h e l aw f

u larres t ; an d the decoy did notN o. 08- 30983

5 h a v e a co g n iz a b le p o s s e s s o r yin te r e s t in th e m o n e yth a t w a s s e iz e d

. T h e t ou chstone of

t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en ti s, a s al w ays, reasonab l en ess. Reas o nab l e ne s s i s a n o bj e c t ive s t andar d, a nd m us tb e a s s e s s e d f r o m t he p e r s p e c tiv e o f a re a s o n a b le o ffic e ro n th e s c e n e . S ee G rah am v. Con n or , 4 90 U

. S. 386 , 3 96- 97 ( 19 89 )

. To de t e r m i ne t he r e as o nab l e ne s s o f a s e i z ur e und e rt he F o u r th A m e n d m e n t, w e e x a m in e th e “ t o t a l i tyo f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s ,” O hi o v . R o b in ette , 519 U

. S. 33, 39 (1996 ) , a nd b al anc e “ t he na t ur e a nd q ual i t y o f t he i nt r us i o n o n t he i ndivi dua l ’ s Fo u rt h Am e ndm e nti nt e r e s t s a ga i ns tt he i m p orta n ce of the go ve rn m en tal i n teres ts all eg ed to jus ti fy the i n tru sion

. ” G ate s v . Texa s D e

p ’ t of Pr o te c tiv ea n dR eg u la to r y S e r v s ., 53 7 F. 3d 40 4, 42 7 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s o m itt e d ). Bat t i s t e f

i r s ta r gue s t hathi s sei z ur e o f t he m o ne y f

r o m t he de c o y att he ti m e o f th e a rres t w a s rea son a b l e u n d er F ou rth A m en d m en t l a w tha t pe rm i ts t he a r r e s t i ng o f

f i c e rt o t ak e po s s e s s i o n o f “ ar t i c l e s o f

v al ue , f

o und upo n t he p r is o n e r , b ym e a n s o f w h ic h , if lef

t in h is p o s s e s s io n , h e m ig h t p r o c u r e h is
e s c a p e , o ro b ta in to o ls , o rim p le m e n t s , o rw e a p o n s w ith w h ic h to e ffe c t h is
esca p e.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. R obi n son , 414 U

. S. 218, 231- 32 ( 1973) ( quot i ng C losson v. Morri son , 47 N

. H

. 482 , 484

- 85 ( 186 7) ) , B att i st e contends that because m on ey
m ay assi stesc ap e, a person h as no ri gh tt o m ai n t ai n possess i on of m on ey w h en he i s a r r e s t e d, and t hus s e i z ur e o f t he m o ne y i n t hi s c as e w as l awf ula s i nc i de nt to the arre st. U ndo ubt e dl y, there i s a s t r o ng go ve r nm e nt ali nt e r e s ti n pr e ve nt i ng t he potenti alesc ap e of

an arres t ee. H ow ever, un der t h ese fact s, it is u n cle a r how B a tt is te ’ s s e i z u r e a n d s u b s e q u e n t a p p r o p r ia tio n o f th e m o n e ya id e d th a t g o a l. E ve n a s e iz u r e th a t i s “l a w ful at i ts i n cep ti on ” m a y ripe n i n to a F ou rth A m en dm en tvi ol ati on w h ere t h e “ m an n er of ex e cu ti on un reasona bl y i n f ri n ges po s s e s s o r y i nt e r e s t s by , f o r e xa m pl e , c o nve r t i ng a t e m po r ar y de pr ivati on of p oss ess oryi n teres ts i n to a p erm a n en t on e.” Fr e e m a n v . C ity of D a lla s , 186 F. 3dN o. 08- 30983

Th e Govern me nt argu es th at the seizurewa s per s e unre a so n ab ledu e toB attis te ’su se 2 of force. Weneed not address this argument because we find that the seizure alo ne, isolated from the u se of force, contravene s theFourth Amen dment. 6 6 0 1 , 6 0 5 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) (i nt er pre t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ja cobsen , 466 U

. S. 109 ( 19 84 ) a nd Un i t ed S t ate s v. P lace , 4 62 U

. S. 6 96 ( 19 83 ) )

. B att i st e ef fe c t e d a pe r m ane nta nd i l l e ga lde pr iva t i o n o f t he m o ne y byt ak i ng t he m o ne y f r o m t he d eco y a t t h e sce n e, p u tti n g iti n to h i s ow n po ck ets, an d s u b seq u en tl y fai l i n g to t u rn i tover at t h e pol i ce st ati on . T h ese act i on s w ere obj ect ivel y u n reasona bl e. B a tti ste’ s a rg u m en t th a t th e dec oy d i d n ot h a ve a p oss ess ory i n te r e s t in th e m on eybe ca u se itbe l on ge d to t h e N O P D i s u n a v a ilin g . AF ou rth A m en d m en t po sse sso ryi n teres t i s n ot l i m i ted to form a l l eg a l ti tl e; “a p rop erty i n t erestin the i t em search ed i s on l y on e fact or i n t h e an al ysi s, an d l ack thereof i s n ot d i sp ositive . ” U

. S

. v. Fi n ley , 477 F. 3d 250, 259 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (f i ndi ng t hat d e fe n d a n t ha d a p oss ess oryi n teres t i n a se i ze d cellph on e ow n ed byh is
em pl oyer)

. In t h i s case, t h e decoy had cl ear possess i on of, an d thu s a possess ory in te r e s t in , th e m o n e y in h is p o c k e ts , n o tw ith s ta n d in gth e fa c t t h a t itfo r m a lly b e lo n g e d to th e N O P D . W e a g r e e w it h t h e G o v e r n m e n tth a tth e d e c o y ’s p oss ess ory i n teres t i n th e m on ey i n con n ection w i th the seizu re is suffi ci en t t o give r i s e t o a Fo ur t h Am e ndm e ntv i o l at i o n. 2 W e th u s f

i n d tha t B a tti ste’ s seizu re w a s u n rea son a b l e u n d er th e F ou rth A m e n d m e n t a n d s u ffic ie n t fo rth e p u r p o s e s o f h is co n v ic tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 242. III A s to s e n te n c in g , B a tt is te co n te n d s t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in
se nt enc i ng hi m purs uant t o t he G ui del i ne appl i c abl e t o r obbe r y, U SS G § 2B 3. 1. Th e d i s t r i c tj u d g e ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Gu i d e l i n e s i s r e v i e w e d d e novo ; becau se B at t i st e o bj ec t ed be l ow , fac t ualf i ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed f orc l earer r or , r at hert han unde rt he m o r e s t r i nge ntpl ai n e r r o rs t and ar d. S ee Un itedS ta tes v. G a rc ia , 567N o. 08- 30983

B atti ste also contends that calculatinghis sentenc e under the baseoffe nse level for 3 robb eryraises aproble m un der doub le je opardy . However, b ecau se he raises this argu ment for the firs t ti meinhi s re plybrief, wedeclin e toa ddre ss it

. See United States v. Jackson , 42 6 F.3 d 30 1, 3 04 n. 2 (5th Cir. 200 5) (“Arguments raise d for the first time in a replybrief. . . are waived .”). 7 F .3d 7 2 1 , 7 3 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). The r e c o r d d e m o ns t r at e s tha tBat t i s t e s t r uc k t he de c o y vi o l e nt l y and
w i t houtpr ov oca ti on; s l i ght l y m or e t han a m i nute l at eraf t ert he dec oy w as secured i n t h e pol i ce c ar, B att i st e w en tt h rough t h e decoy’ s pock et s an d rem oved t h e m on ey. I n sentenci n g B att i st e pu rsuan tt o t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n e f or robbery, t h e d i st ri ctj u dg e st ated t h at i n hi s vi ew , t h e i n t eract i on betw een B att i st e an d the decoy c on st i t u t ed r obbery, w h i ch occurs w h en a person “by f orce an d vi ol en ce, or by i n t i m i da tion , ta kes or at t em pts t o t ak e f rom t h e person or presence of

an ot h er any t h ing of val u e. ” 18 U

. S

. C

. § 2111

. Th e di st ri ctcourt di st i n gu i shed B att i st e’ s act i on s f rom theft , w h i ch does n otinvol ve an y deg ree of f orce, vi ol en ce, or i n t i m i da t i on . Th e fact s are u n di spu t ed, an d thu s t h e di st ri ct court di d n otcl earl y err. 3 F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e A F F IR M t h e convi ct i on an d sen t en ce.