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 1-29-2010 

# U SA v . S t eve n J a ck son 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 . 08-4871

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_2010

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 2010 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 . S t eve n J a ck s on " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1981. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1981NOT 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- 4871
UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . S T E VE N J AC KS ON, 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 fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal
. N o. 07- cr - 00338- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St anl eyR
. C hes l er
Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J anuary26, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges and PA D O V A , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: J anuary29, 2010)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

*H onor abl e J ohn R
. Padova, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on w hethert o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng on a 1 m o tio n to s u p p re s s u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . P a d illa s v . S to rk -G a m c o , In c ., 186 F. 3d 412, 418 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( s t at i ng t hatw hethert o hol d evi dent i aryhear i ng on ad m issi b il ityo f c o n test ed ev iden ce “re sts i n the s o u n d d iscreti o n o f th e d istri ct co u rt . ”). 2 PA D O V A , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge St even J acks on appea l s hi s convi ct i on on one countof pos s es s i ng contr ol l ed
s u b s t a n c e s wi t h i n t e n tt o d e l i v e ri n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) & ( b ) ( 1 ) ( c ) a n d 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2, one countof pos s es s i ng a fi r earm and amm uni t i on i n fur t her ance of a drug t r aff i cki ng
o ff en se in v iolati o n o f 18 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 4 (c)(1)(A )(1), an d o n e co u n t o f po sses sing that firearm
as a convi ct ed fe l on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) ( A )
. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ect
m a tter ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 2 3 1 ; w e h a v e a p p e llate ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. W e af fi r m t he convi ct i on. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yfor t he par t i es , w e di s pens e w i t h anyl engthydi s cus s i on of t he f a c ts. Ja c k so n a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s r e f u sa l to c o n d u c t an e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n h is
s uppr es s i on m ot i on w as i m pr oper . H e argues t hat“once t he def endanthas es t abl i s hed a 1 bas i s forhi s m ot i on, i
. e. , t he s ear ch ors ei zur e w as conduct ed w i t houta w arr ant , t he bur den
s hi ft s t o t he gover nm ent t o s how t hat t he sea r ch or s ei zur e w as r eas onabl e. ” U ni t ed St at es
v. J ohns on, 63 F. 3d 242, 245 ( 3d C i r . 1995)
. J acks on cont ends t hatonce he demonst r at ed in h is sup p ression m o ti o n that the e v iden ce w as se ized w ith o u t a w arran t, the D istri ct C o u rt
w as r equi r ed t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng beca us e the bur den s hi ft ed t o t he G overnm ent t o pr ove the s ear ch and s ei zur e w as r eas onabl e, w i t houthi m havi ng to m ak e an yfur t herO t herC our t s of A ppeal s l i kew i s e r equi r e a de fenda ntt o r ai s e s i gni fi cantfac tual 2 d isp u tes in o rd e r to re c e iv e a p re trial e v id e n tiary he a rin g . S e e U n ited S tate s v . H o w e ll, 2 3 1 F .3 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 0 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (s tatin g “ A n e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n a m o tio n to s uppr es s need be hel d onl yw hen the movi ng paper s al l ege f act s w i t h s uffi ci ent defi ni t enes s , cl ar i t y , and s peci fi ci t yt o enabl e the tr i al cour tt o concl ude thatcont es t ed i s s ues of fa ctexi s t . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G l as s , 128 F. 3d 1398, 1408- 1409 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng t hatdefe ndantbear s t he bur den of s how i ng t her e ar e mat er i al fac t s i n di s put e, and an e vi dent i aryhear i ng i s onl yr equi r ed w hen the mot i on t o s uppr es s r ai s es fac tual a lleg a tio n s th a t ar e su f

f icie n tlyd e f

in ite, sp e c if

ic, d e taile d , an d n o n c o n jec tu ra l to e n a b le th e c o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t co n tes ted iss u e s o f f a c t g o in g to th e v a lid ityo f th e se a rc h a re in i s s ue) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sophi e, 900 F. 2d 1064, 1070- 71 ( 7 C i r . 1990) ( hol di ng t hatan th evident i aryheari ng i s necessar yon l yi f t he p artyrequest i ng t he h eari ng rai ses a si gn i fi cant, dis pu t ed fa ctual i ssue) ; U nit ed S t at es v. P anit z, 90 7 F
. 2d 12 67 , 12 73 -74 (1st C i r. 19 90 ) ( ho l ding t hat “[t ]he t estfor grant i ng an ev i den t i aryheari ng i n a cri m i nal cas e s houl d be s ubs t ant i ve: di d t he def endantm ake a s uffi ci entt hr es hol d s how i ng t hat

3 evi dent i arypr oduct i on. W e do notagr ee. T he st and ard for w hen a heari ng i s r equ i red i s w el l set t l ed in our case l aw . A s a gener al m at t er , an evi dent i aryhear i ng i s r equi r ed i n ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a de fenda nt advanc es a “col or abl e cl ai m ” t hat hi s or her cons t i tut i onal r i ght s have been vi ol at ed. U ni t ed St at es v. B r i nk, 39 F. 3d 419 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o hol d an evi dent i aryhear i ng w h ere the d efendants t at ed “a col or abl e cl ai m t hatt he g o v e r n me n tv i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t t o c o u n s e l b y p l a c i n g h i m i n a c e l l wi t h a k n o wn in f o rm a n t w h o m a y h a v e b e e n a c tin g a s a g o v e rn m e n t ag e n t”) . A c laim is “ c o lo ra b le” if it
c o n sis ts “ o f

m o re th a n m e re b a ld -f

a c e d a lleg a tio n s o f m isc o n d u c t.” U n ited S tate s v . V o ig t, 8 9 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 6 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 6 ). T h u s, to w arran t an e v iden ti aryh ea ri n g , a d ef en d an t’ s
m o ti o n m u st co n tai n “issu es o f f ac t m aterial to the reso lu tio n o f the d ef en d an t’ s
cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . ” I d. , 89 F. 3d at1067. 2m at er i al fac t s w er e i n doubtordi s put e?”) ; W oj t ow i cz v. U ni t ed St at es , 550 F. 2d 786, 790

( 2d C i r . 1977) ( hol di ng t hata def endantm us tpr es ent“s uffi ci ent l ydet ai l ed and co n tr o v erted fa ctua l al lega ti o n s” in o rde r t o rec eive an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g ). 4 J acks on di d notoffe ranyver s i on of eve nt s co n tr ary to t he ver s i on cont ai ned i n t he p o lice re p o rts h e a ttac h e d to h is m o tio n . H e b a se d h is req u e st fo r an e v id e n tiary he a rin g o n ly
on al l eged di s cr epanc i es i n t he r epor t s , w hi ch he ar gued r ai s ed ques t i on s ab o u t the tru th f u ln e ss o f th e a c c o u n t p ro v id e d , an d ra ise d th e su g g e stio n th a t th e e v e n ts lea d in g to h is
arr es tm ayhave unf

ol ded di ffe r ent l y . T h i s w as nota s uffi ci ents how i ng underB r i nk and V oi gt . A ccor di ngl y , t her e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o deny an evi dent i ar yhear i ng. J acks on al s o ar gues t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tdet er m i ned thathe l acke d
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the l aw ful nes s of t he sea rch. T he r ecor d cannots uppor tanys uch i nt erpr et at i on of t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s rul i ng. T he C our ts t at ed att he end of i t s rul i ng t hatt he “def endantfur t her m or e has i ndeed not pr offe r ed any evi dence t hat he has s t andi ng t o w arr ant
a s uppr es s i on hear i ng i n t hi s cas e. ” A 71. Pl ai nl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatJ acks on had fai l ed t o putfor t h anyal t er nat i ve ver s i on of t he fac t s t o w arr anta hea r i ng, nott hathe l acke d
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the s ear ch. B eca use the di s t r i ctcour tactual l ydet er m i ned the
s uppr es s i on i s s ue on i t s m er i t s , J acks on’ s s t andi ng ar gum entm us tbe r ej ect ed. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on.