2006 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 Third C ir c uit 4-18-2006 

# U SA v . Powell P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2120

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc 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 2006 D e c i sion s by 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 more 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 . P owell " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1259. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/1259H on. Paul R . M i chel , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s forthe Feder al * C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL IN T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 04- 2120

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. OM AR POW ELL a /k / a “ O” O m a r P o w e ll, A ppel l ant

____________ O n 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00050) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

A pr i l 17, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and M I C H E L , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed A pr i l 18, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. D e f e n d a n t O m a r P o w e ll p led g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te in exce s s of 50 gr ams of coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, aft erhi s pr etr i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s phy s i cal evi dence and s t at ement s w as deni ed. H e w as s ent ence d on A p ri l 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 to 2 6 8 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t p u rs u a n t to th e U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s . P o w e ll ap p e a ls th e d e n ial o f h is p re trial m o tio n to su p p re ss , arg u in g th a t h is Four th A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen he w as s ubj ect ed t o a w arr ant l es s s ear ch by a pr obat i on offi cer , and thatthe phy s i cal evi dence s ei zed dur i ng the s ear ch, as w el l as su b se q u e n t sta tem e n ts h e m a d e in c u sto d y , sh o u ld b e su p p re ss e d . P o w e ll also a p p e a ls h is s e nt e nc e on the gr ou nd s tha tthe D i s tr i c tCour tvi ol a t e d Uni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , byenhanc i ng hi s s ent ence bas ed on fa ct s notadmi t t ed byhi m orpr oven t o a ju ry b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t, a n d b ytr e a tin g th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry. I. O n O c t o b e r2 8 , 2 0 0 2 , P o w e l l b e g a n a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n i n M o n r o e C o u n ty, P enn sy l van i a, for drug-r el at ed o ffen ses. H e w as r equ i red t o co nsent t o w arr antl ess s ear ches of hi s per s on, pos s es s i ons , and r es i dence on the det erm i nat i on of hi s pr obat i on o f f ice r, an d w a s a lso re q u ire d to su b m it t o p e rio d ic d ru g -te stin g . S h o rtlya f ter h is p ro b a tio n p e rio d b e g a n , P o w e ll’s u rin a ly sis tes t re v e a led th e p re se n c e o f c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f

th e te rm s o f

h is p ro b a tio n . Sever al m onths ther eaf

t er , Pow el l ’ s pr obat i on offi cer , J os eph D uns t one,3

c o n d u c ted a ro u tin e v isit to th e re sid e n c e w h e re P o w e ll w a s re p o rte d lyliv in g w ith h is gi r l fr i end, J enni ferFox, w ho w as al s o on pr obat i on fordrug- r el at ed off ens es . D uns t one w as abl e t o obs erve Pow el l and Fox i n the bedr oom thr ough the gl as s doorof the r es i dence . W hen he knoc ked on the door , he obs erved thatPow el l appea r ed t o conce al s om ethi ng i ns i de hi s cl os etw hi l e Fox l ooked outthe bedr oom w i ndow t ow ar ds the fr ont d o o r. A ft erD uns t one w as admi t t ed, he conduc t ed a “ s w i pe t es t ” on Pow el l ’ s fi ngert i ps an d fo reh ea d , w h ich re v ea led th e p rese n ce o f c o ca ine. A fe w m inu tes l ater, P o w ell ’s ur i ne t es t ed nega t i ve forthe pr es ence of coc ai ne, i ndi cat i ng thatal though he had ha ndl ed the drug, he had notr ece nt l yi nges t ed i t . D uns t one qui ckl yl ocat ed numer ous s m al l cl ear bags of a w hi t e r ockys ubs t ance hi dden i ns i de of a booti n the cl os et , s ur m i s ed thatthe s ubs t ance w as coca i ne, and cont act ed the pol i ce, w ho arr i ved a s hor tt i m e l at erand o b ta in e d a s e a rc h w a rr a n t f o r t h e re s id e n c e . T he s ear ch r es ul t ed i n the s ei zur e of a ddi t i onal quant i t i es of coc ai ne ( i ncl udi ng pow derand r ock coc ai ne hi dden i n Pow el l ’ s s hoe) , cel l ul art el ephones , and appr oxi m at el y$4, 000 i n cas h. Pow el l w as arr es t ed forpr obat i on vi ol at i ons . B efor e he w as tr ans por t ed t o the pol i ce s t at i on, he t ol d a pol i ce of fi certhatthe pow dercoca i ne bel onged t o hi m butthatthe r ock coc ai ne di d not . Pow el l w as notgi ven anyM i r anda w arni ngs befor e thi s conver s at i on. T he pol i ce of fi cert es t i fi ed thatPow el l i ni t i at ed the c o n v e rs a tio n a n d th a t h e h a d o n ly as k e d P o w e ll w h e th e r h e h a d b e e n “ ri p p e d ” (i .e .,4

ro b b e d ). P o w e ll w a s in d icte d b ya f e d e ra l g ra n d ju rya n d c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp ira c yto d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a t lea st 5 0 g ra m s o f c o c a in e b a se in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. W hi l e i n cus t ody , Pow el l s i gned M i r anda w ai ver s and c o n f e s s e d to tr a f

f ic k in g d ru g s in th e a re a . T her eaf t er , Pow el l m oved t o s uppr es s the phy s i cal evi dence s ei zed dur i ng the s ear ch of hi s hom e and pe r s on, and the i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s m ade t o l aw enfor cement offi ci al s dur i ng the s ear ch and i n s ubs equenti nt ervi ew s . T he mot i on w as deni ed af t eran evi dent i aryhear i ng. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned thatbeca us e Pow el l w as a pr obat i oner w h o h a d c o n se n ted to w a rra n tles s s e a rc h e s, th e p ro b a tio n o f f ice rs n e e d e d o n lyre a so n a b le s us pi ci on forthe i ni t i al s ear ch. D uns t one’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s obs ervat i ons of P o w ell ’s fu rt ive m o v em en ts i n the h o u se, th e p o sit ive s w ipe test an d D u n ston e’s know l edge of

Pow el l ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryand hi s r ece ntfai l ur e of a drug t es tpr ovi ded rea so n ab le su sp ici o n to b eli ev e tha t Po w ell p o sses sed co n tr ab an d . M o reo v er, Po w ell ’s s ubs equentconfe s s i ons t o author i t i es , occurr i ng tw o day s , fi ve day s , and thr ee mont hs aft erthe s ear ch, aft erval i d M i r anda w ai ver s , w er e s uffi ci ent l ydi s t ance d i n t i m e and sp a c e so a s to d iss ip a te a n ytain t. Pow el l s ubs equent l ypl ed gui l tyt o one countof cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt ent to d istrib u te in e x c e ss o f 5 0 g ra m s o f

c o c a in e b a se in v io latio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . A t h is p lea c o ll o q u y , P o w ell ad m itted to p arti cipa ti n g in an o n g o ing co n sp ir ac yto im p o rt5

coca i ne and di s tr i but e i ti n M onr oe C ounty , butr es erved hi s r i ghtt o appea l the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . H e al s o agr eed t o cooper at e w i th the G overnm enti n excha nge for favor abl e r ecomm endat i ons ats ent enci ng forpr ovi di ng “s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . ” T he D i s tr i ctC our ttr eat ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes as m andat ory , and ca l cul at ed Pow el l ’ s offe ns e l evel as 34, adopt i ng the Pr es ent ence R eport ’ s cal cul at i on of drug quant i ty , and appl y i ng a tw o- l evel dow nw ar d departur e forcooper at i on and a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a da nger ous fi r earm i n connec t i on w i th the off ens e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o found thatPow el l w as a ca r eeroffe nder . Pow el l ’ s r es ul t i ng G ui del i ne r ange w as 235 t o 293 m onths . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m t o 268 m onths i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed byt en y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he s t atut oryr ange f or P o w ell ’s of

fe n se w as tw en tyy ea rs t o li fe . S ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(A ). II. P ow el l chall eng es the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of h i s pretri al m oti on t o sup press p h y sic a l ev id e n c e a n d sta tem e n ts. W e re v iew a D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a m o tio n to s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o the under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs , and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overi t s appl i cat i on of the l aw t o the fa ct s . U ni t ed St at es v. L ockett , 406 F. 3d 207, 211 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). W e affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of P ow el l ’s m oti on t o sup press phy s i cal evi dence and s t at ement s beca us e i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e notcl ear l yerr oneous a n d b e c a u se P o w e ll’s F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w e re n o t v io late d w h e n h e a n d h is res i den ce w ere s earched b yhis probati on off i cer and then bypo l i ce of fi cers .6

P o w ell arg u es th at be ca u se state a n d fe d era l l aw en fo rce m en t of ficials “w ere col l abor at i ng i n conce r t. . . w el l befor e M r . Pow el l w as det ai ned, ” the s ear ches vi ol at ed th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. B r. A p p ’t a t 2 1 . P o w e ll arg u e s th a t b e c a u se th e tain t o f th is vi ol at i on ext ends t o the i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s he made t o l ocal and fe der al i nves t i gat or s , and bec aus e he made thos e s t at ement s al l egedl yw i thoutbei ng i nform ed th a th e f a c e d a p o t e n t i a l l i f

e s e n t e n c e , a l l o f

h i s s t a t e m e n t s s h o u l d a l s o b e s u p p r e s s e d . We s e e n o m e ri t in th e s e a rg u m e n ts . Pow el l ’ s r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyw as r educe d beca us e he w as on p ro b a tio n a n d h a d c o n se n ted to w a rra n tles s s e a rc h e s o n th e d e ter m in a tio n o f h is p a ro le o f f ice r. A t th e sa m e tim e , the G o v e rn m e n t h a d a n in c re a se d in ter e st in m o n ito rin g h is beh avior . S ee G ri ffi n v . W i sconsi n, 48 3 U . S . 86 8, 87 5 (198 7); U nit ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 417 F. 3d 373, 376 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “R eas onabl e s us pi ci on” i s s uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe Four th A m endmentfora w arr ant l es s s ear ch bya pr obat i on offi cerunders uch circu m stan ce s. U n it ed S tat es v . K n igh ts, 5 3 4 U . S . 1 1 2 , 1 1 8

– 1 9 (20 0 1 ). W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thatD uns t one had a p a rt ic u la ri z e d a n d o b

je c tiv e b a s is f

o r s u rm is in g th a t th e re w a s c o c a in e o n th e p re m is e s . S e e U n ited S tate s v . A rv izu , 5 3 4 U .S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 (2 0 0 2 ) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ) (re a so n a b le suspi ci on i s a part i cular i zed an d o bject i ve b asi s, un der the tot al i tyof the ci rcum st ances, fo r sus p ec ti n g lega l w ron g d o ing ). N ori s ther e anybas i s fors uppr es s i ng Pow el l ’ s s t at ement s . Pow el l i ni t i at ed the7

conver s at i on w i th the pol i ce of fi ceri n hi s ki t chen a nd vol unt eer ed the i nform at i on that the pow dercoca i ne bel onged t o hi m . See M i r anda v. A r i zona, 384 U . S. 436, 444 ( 1966) (c u sto d ial in ter ro g a tio n is q u e stio n in g “ in iti a ted b ylaw e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs” ). P o w e ll su b se q u e n tlyw a iv e d h is M ira n d a rig h ts in w riting a n d h is s tate m e n ts w e re v o lu n tar ily g iv e n . P o w ell ch all en g es h is sen tenc e o n the g rou n d itv iolates th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w hi ch w as i s s ued al m os ta y ear aft erhe w as s ent ence d. Pow el l ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed B ookerby cal cul at i ng hi s s ent ence bas ed on fa ct s notchar ged i n the i ndi ctm ent , admi t t ed byhi m , or found bya j urybypr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and bytr eat i ng the Sent enci ng G u i d e l i n e s a s m a n d a t o ry. W e r evi ew forpl ai n err orbeca us e Pow el l di d notr ai s e thes e cl ai m s bel ow . See U n ite d S ta te s v . D a v is , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 4

– 1 6 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); F e d . R . C ri m . P . 5 2 (b ). B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t , act i ng pr e- B ooker , tr eat ed the G ui del i nes as m andat ory , the err ori s pl ai n, and Pow el l ’ s s ent ence m us tbe vac at ed and the ca s e r emanded for re s e n te n c in g in a c c o rd a n c e w ith B o o k e r. P o w e ll also a rg u e s f

o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l th a t th e D istric t C o u rt v io late d h is Si xth A m endmentr i ght s as el uci dat ed i n B ookerbyappl y i ng tw o s ent enci ng enhanc ement s bas ed on fa ct s notadmi t t ed i n hi s gui l typl ea orfound bya j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . T hi s courthas s t at ed thatj udi ci al fac t - fi ndi ng i s perm i s s i bl e and “ asbefor e B ooker , the s t andar d of pr oof underthe G ui del i nes fors ent enci ng fac t s cont i nues

t o be pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 330 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). III . W e w i l l aff

i r m the or derdeny i ng Pow el l ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s phy s i cal evi dence a n d sta tem e n ts, b u t w ill v a c a te P o w e ll’s se n ten c e a n d re m a n d f o r re se n ten c in g in ac co rda n ce w ith B o o k er.