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 8-13-2009 

# U SA v . M aurice P lumme r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-2371

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . M aur ic e P lumme r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 826. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/826NOT 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. 08- 2371 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . M AU RI CE PLUM M ER al s o know n as MA U R I C E D I O N W I L L I A MS

M au ri ce P lum m er, A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2- 05- cr - 00336- 1) D istri ct Ju d g es: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 24, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t13, 2009 )

OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge M aur i ce Pl um m erpl ed gui l t yt o t hr ee c ount s of an i ndi ct m ent : fel on i n pos s es s i onFor i dent i fi cat i on purpos es , w e s hal l cont i nue t o r efe rt o heras Sm i t h r athert han 1 P lum m er. 2 of a f i rear m , i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g) (1) (tw o co un t s) ; and con spi racyt o p ossess wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e mo r e t h a n 5 0 g r a ms o f c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( one count ) . Pl um m er ’ s pl ea a gr eementcont ai ns t he u su a l w a iv e r o f

a p p e a l rig h ts, w ith o n e e x c e p tio n h e c o u ld a p p e a l – w h e th e r, in connec t i on w i t h a mot i on t o s uppr es s t he cr ack c ocai ne, hi s t hen- gi r l fr i end ( now w i fe) B r andi Sm i t h cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of he rapart m entbyl aw enfor cementoffi cer s s eeki ng 1 t o arr es thi m . I n s ear chi ng Sm i t h’ s apart m entforPl um m er , t he off i cer s found t he cr ack c o c a in e in p la in v ie w . P lum m er c lai m s S m ith ’s co n sen t w as c o erc ed b ysev era l l aw en fo rce m en t of fice rs s how i ng up atherapart m entdoorand t el l i ng Sm i t h t heyhad an a r r es tw arr antfor Pl um m er( i n fac t , t heydi d) . M or eover , Pl um m ercont ends t hatt he C our terr ed bynot c o n sid e rin g h o w S m ith h e rse lf p e rc e iv e d th e o f

f ice rs’ a c tio n s; th u s it d id n o t ev a lu a te a ll t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s i nvol vi ng t he s ear ch. I n t hi s cont ext , he conc l udes , t he s ear ch w as i nval i d and the cr ack c ocai ne s houl d be s uppr es s ed. T he pr obl em for Pl um m eri s t hatSm i t h, on t he advi ce of hercouns el , w oul d not test ifyat t h e su p p ression h ea ri n g w ith o u t i m m u n ityfro m p rose cu ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed thatr eques taft erconcl udi ng t hatt he extr aor di naryr el i ef of i m m uni t yw as not neede d forSm i t h t o t es t i fyon t he l i m i t ed i s s ue of w hethers he cons ent ed t o t he s ear ch of herapart m entforPl um m er . T hus t he onl yt es t i m onybefor e the C our tatt he s uppr es s i on3

hear i ng w as t hatof t w o pol i ce of fi cer s t o t he ef

fec tt hatSm i t h cons ent ed t o t he s ear ch. Pl um m er ’ s couns el on appea l per cei ves corr ect l yt hatt he cons enti s s ue i s not j oi ned unt i l fi r s the w i ns on t he i m m uni t yr eques t , foronl yt hen ca n he geti n evi dence t hatSm i t h di d notcons entfr eel yt o t he s ear ch of he rapart m ent . W hi l e the G overnm ent a rg u e s th a t ap p e a lin g th e d e n ial o f im m u n ity“ f

a lls o u tsid e th e lo n e sp e c if ic e x c e p tio n to t he ap pell at e w ai ver [con sent ], ” G ov ’t ’s B r. at12 , w e beli eve the i m m un i t yi ssue t i es as a p rec o n d it ion to the co n sen t exc ep ti o n . T h at said, w e c an n o t saythat the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of i m m uni t yt o Sm i t h w as an abus e of di s cr et i on, t he s t andar d Pl um m erconce des a p p lies (P lu m m e r’s B r. at 2 & 9 ), as th e C o u rt’s r e a so n s f o r d e n y in g im m u n ityto S m ith a re a m p ly su p p o rt e d . S e e A p p . A -4 6 7 -6 9 . F o r t h ese rea so n s, w e a ff irm the d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rtd en y ing P lum m er’s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he cr ack c ocai ne evi dence .