2010 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 6-11-2010 

# U SA v . Ro dney L a w 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 . 08-3723

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . Rodney L a

w " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1160. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1160H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew * J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT 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- 3723 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. R O D N E Y L A W , A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R 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 . C . C r i m . N o. 08- cr - 00077- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u b o is Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay11, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and H A Y D E N , D i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 11, 2010)

OP I NI ON-2-

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge R o d n e yL a w c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to su p p re ss , h is c o n v ic tio n , a n d h is s e n te n c e . W e w ill a f f ir m . I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e p a rties , w e w ill d isc u ss o n lyth e f a c ts re lev a n t to o u r a n a lysis . A tappr oxi m at el y1 a. m . on J une 21, 2004, Phi l adel phi a pol i ce of fi cer s G eor ge B obe and M arvi n W i l ki ns arr i ved atan apa r tm entfol l ow i ng a r adi o cal l conce rni ng a “di s turbance ” i nvol vi ng “a pe r s on w i th a gun. ” ( SA 14. ) O ut s i de the apa r t m ent , the offi cer s hear d “a l i t t l e noi s e l i ke a l i t t l e ar gum ent . ” (I d. ) O n e n ter in g th e a p a rtm e n t, bo th L aw and hi s gi r l fr i end, T y ei s ha Fal l i gan, s t at ed thateverythi ng w as fi ne, though Fal l i gan appea r ed ups et . Fal l i gan s t at ed thats he w ant ed herj ew el ryback, w hi ch w as i n a tr avel bag thatL aw hel d. L aw handed the bag t o B obe w ho handed i tt o Fal l i gan. W i l ki ns es cort ed Law t o the ki t chen, w hi l e B obe ac compani ed Fal l i gan t o the b e d ro o m . F a lli g a n p lac e d th e b a g p a rtiallyin sid e a n o p e n c lo se t. B o b e p o in ted h is flash li g h t t o w ard s the o p en b ag an d saw tw o fiv e-inc h stack s o f c ash “stac k ed in ru b b erbands , notbent , notfol ded. ” ( SA 27. ) B obe then opene d the bag f ur therand “s aw even m o re m o n e y ,” a t w h ic h p o in t F a llig a n b e g a n to s o b . (I d. ) B obe t ook the bag t o t he ki t chen, butfound thatW i l ki ns and Law had l eftthe a p a rtm e n t. B o b e c a rrie d th e b a g d o w n sta irs to th e stre e t w h e re h e c o n f ro n ted L a w w ithL aw w as acqui t t ed of the pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng 1 c r i me , 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) , a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f a g u n b ya c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rthad j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 23 1. W e exerci se 2 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . -3- th e b a g . L a w re a c te d v io le n tly, p u n c h in g B o b e a n d f le e in g o n f

o o t. A n i nvent oryof the bag a tthe pr eci nctr evea l ed: 31. 18 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne; 8 6 . 5 7 g ram s o f c o ca ine p o w d er; ov er $ 1 6 , 9 0 0 ca sh in v ariou s d en o m ination s; cl ea r, pl as t i c s andw i ch bags ; a di gi t al s cal e, an el ectr i c mi xer , and a pot , al l w i th coca i ne r es i due. A s ear ch of the apa r t m entpur s uantt o a w arr antuncover ed a pl at e and a di gi t al s cal e both w i th coca i ne r es i due and a l oaded gun a nd amm uni t i on. F o llo w in g h is in d ic tm e n t, L a w f ile d a m o tio n to s u p p re s s th e p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on. A j uryconvi ct ed Law of pos s es s i on of atl eas tfi ve g ra m s o f c ra c k c o c a in e w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a n d p o ss e ss io n o f c o c a in e p o w d e r w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . See 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), ( b )(1)(C ). H is prese n tenc e re p o rt 1 peg ged his base of

fense level at36 . T he D i stri ctC ou rt , ho w ever, reduced the o ffen se l evel t o 26 by , among ot herthi ngs , appl y i ng a tw o- l evel r educt i on forcr i m es i nvol vi ng c ra c k c o c a in e . See U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 . , A p p li ca ti o n N o te 10 (D )(I ). L aw ’s ad v isory G ui del i nes r ange w as 110- 137 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . T he C our ts ent ence d hi m t o 130 m onths . A tthe conc l us i on of s ent enci ng, defe ns e couns el s t at ed thatthe C our tw as

“ im m e n s e ly f

a ir ” a n d th a t L a w “ g o t a tr e m e n d o u s b re a k .” (S A 3 3 1 -3 2 .) 2-4- II. A.

“ W e re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p re ss f

o r c lea r e rro r a s to the under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs and w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overques t i ons of l aw . ” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 1. T h e p lai n v iew ex ce p ti o n p erm it s a w arran tl ess s eizu re o f e v iden ce “if p o li ce are law f u llyin a p o sitio n f

ro m w h ich th e yv iew a n o b jec t, i f its in c rim in a tin g c h a ra c ter is i m m edi at el yappar ent , and i f the off i cer s have a l aw ful r i ghtof ac ces s t o the obj ect . ” Mi nnes ota v. D i cke rs on , 5 0 8 U . S . 3 6 6 , 3 7 5 (19 9 3 ). W ith resp ec t t o an o b ject’s i ncr i m i nat i ng char act er– the di s put ed el ementher e – the pl ai n vi ew doctr i ne i s s at i s fi ed o n ly w h e re p o lic e h a v e p ro b a b le c a u s e to b e lie v e th a t a n o b je c t is c o n tr a b a n d . I

d. T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatB obe had pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatthe ca s h w as i ncri m i nati ng . T hat conclusi on w as erroneou s. A lar g e a m o u n t o f

c a sh , in a n d o f

itse lf , is n o t per se i ncr i m i nat i ng. T hi s i s s ue w as addr es s ed i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sokol ow , wh e r e th e d e f e n d a n tp a i d $ 2 , 1 0 0 i n c a s h f o rtwo ai rpl ane t i cket s , t aki ng the ca s h fr om a r ol l of tw entydol l arbi l l s cont ai ni ng near l ytw i ce that am o u n t. 4 9 0 U . S . 1 , 8 (19 8 9 ). C all ing the u se o f c ash u n u su al, the S u p rem e C o u rt n o n e th e les s n o ted th a t itw a s “ n o t b yitse lf p ro o f o f a n yill e g a l co n d u c t an d is q u ite cons i s t entw i th i nnocenttr avel . ” I d. a t 9 ; s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. B er enguer , 562 F. 2d 206,See U ni t ed Stat es v. C hhi en , 266 F. 3d 1, 8- 9 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) ( i n concl udi ng that 3 $2, 000 “j us t i fi ed a br i ef pe r i od of addi t i onal ques t i oni ng, ” obs ervi ng that“pos s es s i on of a lar g e , u n e x p lain e d su m o f c a sh [ m a y ] su p p o rt re a so n a b le s u sp icio n ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. H ow ard , 210 F. Supp. 2d 503, 516 n. 11 ( D . D el . 2002) ( not i ng, i n d icta , thatpos s es s i on of $5, 000 m ayw arr antfi ndi ng of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on) -5- 2 1 0 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 7 ) (b ill f o ld c o n tain in g $ 3 ,2 0 0 “ o f f e re d n o im m e d iate lya p p a re n t” incu lpato ryev iden ce ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. $121, 100. 00 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 999 F. 2d 1 5 0 3 , 1 5 0 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( i n f o r f e i tu r e p r o c e e d i n g , h o l d i n g th a t , “ [ a ] b s e n ts o me evi dence , ” l ar ge s um s of m oneypr ovi de “no r eas onabl e bas i s forbel i evi ng thatthe m o n e yis s u b sta n tiallylin k e d to ” ill e g a l co n d u c t); U n itedS ta tes v . A th e h o rta , 72 9 F. Supp. 248, 253, 259 ( E . D . N . Y . 1990) ( i ncr i m i nat orynatur e of $5, 000 w r apped i n rubber b a n d s n o t im m e d iate lya p p a re n t); Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Mc Wi l l i a ms , 751 F. Supp. 988, 988 ( M . D . G a. 1990) ( s ei zur e of ove r$116, 000 cas h i m pr operunderpl ai n vi ew doctr i ne w h ere “re co rd is ab so lutelyd ev o id o f e v iden ce ” li n k ing ca sh to crim inal ac ti v ity ). T he Seventh C i r cui tcry s t al l i zed the i s s ue i n U ni t ed Stat es v. C er vant es , w riting : “al though a w ad of c as h i s noti n i t s el f a s us pi ci ous obj ect , a w ad of c as h i n the hands of a p erso n w h o the p o li ce h av e g o o d rea so n to b eli ev e jus t r ec eive d itin ex ch an g e f o r a d e liv e ryo f

ill e g a l d ru g s is su sp icio u s a n d in d e e d e n o u g h so to g iv e th e p o lice p ro b a b le ca u se to b eli ev e itev iden ce o f c ri m inal ac ti v ity . ” 1 9 F . 3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 3 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T h e in c rim in a tin g c h a ra c ter o f th e m o n e yv iew e d b yB o b e w a s n o t im m e d iate ly a p p a re n t. A lth o u g h th e c irc u m sta n c e s h e re m a yw e ll h a v e g iv e n rise to a re a so n a b le su sp icio n th a t cr im in a l ac tiv ityw a s a f o o t, see i nfr a , the yd id n o t g iv e rise to p ro b a b le 3O n appea l , L aw does notchal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s al t ernat i ve r at i onal e. 4 -6- c a u se – th e re q u isite a m o u n t o f su sp icio n f

o r a se izu re u n d e r th e p lain v iew e x c e p tio n to the w arr antr equi r ement . W hen B obe s aw the ca s h, he di d notpeerfur theri nt o the bag, m uch l es s s ee drugs orcontr aband, and ther e w as no i ndi cat i on of drug act i vi tyor , for thatm att er , anyothercr i m i nal act i vi ty . M or eover , otherthan B obe’ s s t at ementthatt he m oneyw as “a l i t t l e odd” ( SA 20) , ther e w as no t es t i m onythatB obe thoughtthe ca s h w as in c ri m in a tin g o r h a d a n yth in g to d o w ith d ru g s . T h i s i s n o tt o s a y t h a tl a r g e a m o u n t s o f c a s h m a y neve rb e in h e re n tly in c ri m in a tin g . T he i ncr i m i nat i ng natur e of a l ar ge amountof ca s h m ay be i m m edi at el yappar ent– thus g i v i n g r i s e t o p r o b a b l e c a u s e – wh e r e th e t o t a l i tyo f th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s p r o v i d e s s o me i ndi cat i on thatthe ca s h i s contr aband. H er e, thos e addi t i onal ci r cumst ance s w er e l acki ng. 2. I n the al t ernat i ve, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatB obe’ s t empora rypos s es s i on and br i ef c onfr ont at i on of Law w i th t he bag w as a pr operi nves t i gat orydet ent i on. W e agr ee. 4 I n U ni t ed Stat es v. P lace , the Supr eme C our ts anct i oned the w arr ant l es s s ei zur e of l uggage on r eas onabl e s us pi ci on “forthe purpos e of pur s ui ng a l i m i t ed cour s e of i nves t i gat i on” t o “qui ckl yconfi r m ordi s pel the author i t i es ’ s us pi ci on. ” 462 U . S. 696, 7 0 2 (19 8 3 ). T h u s, rea so n ab le su sp ici o n is al l th at i s req u ir ed fo r po li ce to f u rth er inq u ir e a b o u t a d e ta in e d p a c k a g e d a n d /o r c o n d u c t a lim ite d c o u rs e o f in v e s tig a tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Frost , 9 9 9 F . 2 d 7 3 7 , 7 4 0 -41 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).-7-

H er e, the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , w hi ch i ncl uded a pol i ce r adi o r eportof an arm ed i ndi vi dual , a hea t ed di s put e overFal l i gan’ s j ew el ry , Fal l i gan’ s pl ace m entof the bag on the thr es hol d of a c l os et , and the l ar ge s um s of ca s h, cr eat ed r eas onabl e s us pi ci on perm i t t i ng B obe t o t empora r i l ydet ai n the bag a nd as k L aw fol l ow - up ques t i ons r egar di ng i t s cont ent s . T hatbr i ef i nqui r y , w hi ch pr om pt ed Law t o punch B obe and f l ee, l ed t o a l at eri nvent orys ear ch atthe pr eci nct , a s ear ch Law does notand, i ndeed, cannot chall eng e. A ccordi ng l y , the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl yden i ed L aw ’s m oti on t o sup press . 3. L aw fur thercont ends thatB obe’ s us e of a fl as hl i ghtt o i l l um i nat e the cont ent s of th e b a g v io late d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. R i ckus , i n th e c o n t e x to f a n i g h t t i me a u t o mo b i l e s e a r c h , we concl uded that“the us e of a fl as hl i ghtt o ai d the off i cer ’ s vi s i on di d nottr ans form the obs ervat i ons j us t i fi ed underthe ‘ pl ai n vi ew doctr i ne’ i nt o an i l l egal s ear ch. ” 737 F. 2d 360, 366 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . Si m i l ar l y , her e, ther e i s nothi ng unr eas onabl e abouta pol i ce offi cer ’ s us e of a fl as hl i ght , a comm onpl ace pi ece of pol i ce e qui pm ent , t o bett er ill u m in a te th e th re sh o ld o f a c lo se t. A f

las h lig h t m e re lye n h a n c e s a n o f f ice r’s v isio n ; it d o e s n o t e x p a n d its s c o p e . S e e S ta te v . Hite , 642 So. 2d 55, 56 ( Fl a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 1994) ( “[U ] s e of the fl as hl i ghtt o i l l um i nat e the part i al l yopen cl os etar ea doe s notcons t i tut e a sea rch o r vio lat e a n yco n sti tuti o n al princ iples. ”).-8- B. L a w a l s o c h a l l e n g e s th e s u f f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n . We e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w . U ni t ed Stat es v. B or nm an , 5 5 9 F .3 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e c re d it a ll in f

e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Spar r ow , 371 F. 3d 851, 852 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e mustaff i r m the convi ct i on i f “ any ra tio n a l trier o f f a c t co u ld have f ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. V oigt , 8 9 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 8 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). L a w a rg u e s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to p ro v e th a t h e a c tu a llyo r c o n stru c tiv e ly pos s es s ed the s ei zed c ocai ne. H ow ever , cr edi t i ng Fal l i gan’ s t es t i m ony , the evi dence i ndi cat es thatL aw l i ved i n the apa r t m ent , br oughtthe bag i nt o the apa r t m ent , exer ci s ed contr ol overthe bag, and, w hen conf r ont ed w i th the bag, s truck B obe and f l ed, e v id e n c in g c o n s c io u s n e s s o f g u ilt. G iv e n L a w ’s “ e x tr e m e ly h ig h ” b u rd e n , U ni t ed Stat es v. L ore , 430 F. 3d 190, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , hi s chal l enge t o the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence f a ils . M oreove r, becau se he fail ed to r ai se the argu m ent i n the D i stri ctC ou rt , w e al so r ej ectL aw ’ s cl ai m thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al beca us e the ver di ctw as agai ns tthe g re a t w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r ubbs , 5 0 6 F . 3 d 4 3 4 , 4 4 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).

C. F in a lly , L a w c o n ten d s th a t “[ t]h e se n ten c e im p o se d w a s u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se it d id nott ake i nt o cons i der at i on the uncons ci onabl e 100: 1 r at i o betw een c ocai ne and c r ack-9-

w hen i tcom es t o d et erm i ning of fense level . ” (Law B r. at31 . ) Th ere i s nothi ng befo re us, h o w ev er, i n d icati n g that the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t kn o w that itco u ld, i n it s d iscreti o n , v ary dow nw ar d bas ed on the cr ack/ coca i ne di s par i ty . I ndeed, the C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the tw o -le v e l re d u c tio n in th e b a se o f f e n se lev e l f

o r c rim e s in v o lv in g c ra c k c o c a in e n o t o n ly acc ount ed forthe cr ack/ coca i ne di s par i ty , butw as an i m pl i ci tacknow l edgementand acc ept ance of Law ’ s cont ent i on. H i s s ent ence w as notunr eas onabl e. III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof s ent ence .