Source: http://wakeforestlawreview.com/tag/fourth-amendment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:16:40+00:00

Document:
On February 23, 2017, the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in United States v. Hill, a criminal appeal on behalf of two defendants. Defendant-Appellants Darren Hill (“Hill”) and Lloyd Dodwell (“Dodwell”) appealed the Western District of North Carolina’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence pertaining to an allegedly unconstitutional traffic stop in 2012. The Defendants argue this traffic stop violated their Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, determining that the stop did not offend its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence at the time it occurred.
On May 2, 2012, Defendants were traveling in an SUV through Henderson County, North Carolina. Deputy David McMurray (“Deputy McMurray”) was patrolling the area when he noticed Defendants’ SUV traveling closely behind another vehicle. Deputy McMurray subsequently pulled over Defendant’s and approached their vehicle. Dodwell was driving and Hill was in the passenger seat. After Deputy McMurray explained the stop, Dodwell admitted to following too closely. Deputy McMurray then asked Dodwell to exit the vehicle and follow him to his patrol car so he could issue a warning ticket. While Deputy McMurray was entering the ticket information, he engaged Dodwell in conversation. Some of Deputy McMurray’s questions pertained to the stop and others ranged to more personal, off-topic questions. Specifically, Deputy McMurray asked Dodwell who owned the vehicle – to which Dodwell answered that he it belonged to either Hill’s girlfriend or sister. Upon questioning, Dodwell also acknowledged that he had previously been arrested for drugs.
Deputy McMurray then returned to the vehicle to speak with Hill to determine who owned the vehicle. While speaking with Deputy McMurray, Hill made numerous statements that conflicted with information Dodwell provided. As he later testified, Deputy McMurray became concerned that some criminal activity was occurring because of Defendants’ contradictory statements and nervous behavior, and the confusion over the owner of the SUV. Moreover, Defendants were traveling from Atlanta which, according to the government, is the “largest source of narcotics on the east coast.” in a type of vehicle commonly used for drug trafficking. After further discussion with each Defendant, Deputy McMurray notified them he was going to call for another deputy so he could run his drug-detection dog around the SUV. He explained that he would only search the vehicle of the drug-detection dog alerted, but would not search if the dog did not alert. Both Defendants consented to this search.
As a result of the search, Deputy McMurray and his team found over $30,000 of bundled U.S. currency, which Deputy McMurray believed to be drug proceeds. During the search, another officer on the scene read Defendants their Miranda rights and each Defendant consented to questioning. The rest of the search revealed no other contraband in the SUV. Ten days later while reviewing the recording of the stop, Deputy McMurray saw that Hill had deposited a bag containing cocaine hydrochloride behind the patrol car’s driver seat.
A grand jury indicted Defendants for possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Both Defendants filed a motion to suppress which the magistrate joined for hearing. After the hearing, the magistrate recommended that the district court deny Defendants’ motion. Defendants generally objected to the magistrate’s memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) on the grounds that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court accepted the M&R and denied Defendants’ motion to suppress in full because (1) Deputy McMurray did not unreasonably extend the traffic stop prior to issuing the ticket and (2) Deputy McMurray’s post-ticket extension was justified by both reasonable suspicion and Defendants’ consent.
On appeal, Defendants argue that Deputy McMurray impermissibly extended the traffic stop both before and after issuing a warning ticket, based on Supreme Court precedent from Rodriguez v. United States and Fourth Circuit precedent set in United States v. Williams. The government argues that any de minimis pre-ticket delay was allowed under governing precedent at the time of the stop. Moreover, the government claims Defendants waived their rights to challenge the reasonableness of the post-ticket extension by failing to sufficiently object on that ground.
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” According to the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Caballes, a routine traffic stop becomes an unreasonable seizure when law enforcement impermissibly exceeds the stop’s scope or duration. The Supreme Court limited the permissible scope and duration of a traffic stop in Terry v. Ohio. If a traffic stop strays outside the boundaries of its permissible scope or duration, the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule normally prevents the government from using evidence obtained during said search against the victim of the illegal seizure. The Supreme Court explained an exception to this exclusionary rule in Davis v. United States – the good-faith doctrine. This doctrine protects law enforcement action taken in “objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent” at the time of the search or seizure. The Fourth Circuit determined this doctrine applies in this case.
Yet, Defendants asked the Fourth Circuit to analyze Deputy McMurray’s conduct in 2012 under the standards set out in Rodriguez and Williams – cases that were not decided until 2015. Defendants argued that Deputy McMurray violated their Fourth Amendment rights by asking off-topic questions before writing a ticket. But when this search was conducted in 2012, the Fourth Circuit’s binding precedent set in United States v. Digiovanni held that questioning or other activity unrelated to the initial purposes of the stop only rendered the stop unreasonable if the officer “failed to diligently pursue the purposes of the stop.” In Digiovanni, the Fourth Circuit determined that de minimis delay in issuing a ticket warranted suppression only when an officer did not begin, or completely abandoned, actions related to the cited purpose of the stop.
In this case, the Fourth Circuit decided that the record sufficiently demonstrates that Deputy McMurray’s questions were in continuance of the pursuit of activities related to the initial stop. Moreover, the Deputy continued issuing the warning throughout the pre-ticket process. Although his questions may have been off-topic, Deputy McMurray never strayed from diligently pursuing the purposes of the stop. Moreover, Defendants effectively waived their challenge to any post-ticket extension by failing to specifically object on those grounds before the district court. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit deemed this stop constitutional.
Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.
On Friday, October 21, 2016, the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in the criminal case United States v. Wharton. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s conviction of the defendant for conspiracy, making a false statement, theft, and embezzlement, all in connection with her unlawful receipt of government benefits. On appeal, the defendant argued that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based was materially false and thus violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the affidavit’s omitted facts were not material.
After the death of the defendant’s daughter in 2002, the defendant took her two granddaughters into her home. She began receiving Social Security survivors’ benefits on her granddaughters’ behalf. In 2012, the Government discovered that the defendant’s granddaughters had not lived with the defendant since 2009 and were not receiving their benefits. The Government then launched an investigation into the defendant’s use of the Social Security funds.
Following the investigation, a grand jury indicted the defendant on two counts of theft of government property in violation of 18 USC § 641 and 42 USC § 1381a(a)(3) on January 31, 2013. The grand jury issued a sealed superseding indictment on June 26, 2013, which was unsealed on July 10, 2013. The indictment charged both the defendant and her husband with conspiracy to embezzle, embezzlement, and making false statements. While the indictment remained sealed, on July 1, 2013, a special agent from the Social Security Administrator’s office executed an affidavit in which he asserted that the defendant and her husband lived together in the defendant’s home. The magistrate issued a search warrant based on the agent’s affidavit, and the Social Security Administrator’s office searched the defendant’s home, discovering a number of documents relevant to the criminal charges.
Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence uncovered in the search of her home. The District Court denied her motion to suppress for all evidence except that which was obtained from her second-floor bedroom. Ultimately, the District Court convicted the defendant and her husband for conspiracy to embezzle money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, making false statements in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1383a(a)(2), and embezzlement in violation of 18 USC § 641.
The defendant asserted that special agent’s affidavit was materially false in violation of the Fourth Amendment because it omitted the fact that she and her husband did not live together.
In the affidavit, the special agent asserted that the defendant and her husband lived together on the basis of interviews he conducted with the defendant, her husband, and their children. Both the defendant and her husband stated that they had been married continuously for 43 years and lived together in the defendant’s home. The special agent also discovered that the defendant’s husband’s electricity account provided power to the entire home, not just his basement living space. Additionally, the special agent discovered that Dish Network provided cable television to the entire home with the defendant and her husband both listed as authorized users.
The District Court held that the defendant and her husband did live separately in that the defendant’s husband only occupied the common areas of the home upon invitation and kept the door to his basement living area locked. However, the omission was not material and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit applied a de novo standard of review to the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.
According to the Fourth Circuit, the District Court properly addressed the defendant’s claim as a Franks v. Delaware question. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Although a Franks analysis usually begins with the threshold question of whether a district court improperly denied an evidentiary hearing, the Fourth Circuit eschewed that preliminary question because the District Court granted the defendant an evidentiary hearing before denying the motion to suppress.
When a defendant asserts that an affiant has omitted material facts in the affidavit, the defendant must prove that the affiant intentionally or recklessly made a materially false statement or omitted material information.
While Franks requires proof of both intentionality and materiality, only materiality was at issue on appeal. An omission is material if it is necessary to the magistrate’s finding of probable cause to support the warrant. When evaluating materiality, a court inserts the omitted facts and then determines whether the corrected affidavit supports probable cause. If it does, there is no Franks violation.
In recent cases United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109 (4th Cir. 2016) and United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2008), the Fourth Circuit reversed the defendants’ convictions after concluding that the omitted information in question undermined the entire foundation of the affidavits. In Lull, an officer omitted facts that undermined the reliability of a confidential informant who supplied many of the facts in the affidavit. In Tate, an officer omitted the fact that much of the evidence supporting his affidavit originated from a questionable search of the defendant’s trash. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that if the trash search was illegal, that evidence would have to be suppressed. Without the trash search evidence, the officer’s warrant lacked probable cause.
In contrast, the fact that the defendant and her husband did not live together did not change the fair probability that evidence relating to the defendant’s crimes would be discovered in the common areas of the house. The magistrate was reasonable in concluding that the defendant and her husband lived together because they stated that they lived together, and they shared utilities and cable services, creating a reasonable inference that both individuals used those services throughout the home. Finally, the omitted fact did not call into question the inherent reliability or validity of the affidavit supporting the warrant, unlike in Lull and Tate.
Therefore, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s conviction of the plaintiff on all counts.
Today, the Fourth Circuit issued its published in the criminal case of United States v. Robinson, deciding 2-1, the Court reversed and vacated the decision of District Court of the Northern District of West Virginia, holding that Defendant Robinson’s motion to suppress evidence should have been granted. In this case, the West Virginia police department received an anonymous tip. The tipper reported that the tipper saw a man load a gun in a 7-Eleven parking lot, the man subsequently concealed the gun, and then left the parking lot in a car. Only a few minutes passed when the police stopped a car matching the tipper’s description. The police stopped the car because the driver and passenger’s failure to wear a seatbelt in violation of West Virginia traffic law. Defendant Robinson was the passenger in the car. He complied with the police requests to exit the car. Then an officer frisked Defendant Robinson and found a firearm in one of Defendant Robinson’s pockets. Defendant Robinson was indicted by a grand jury on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Defendant Robinson sought to exclude the evidence recovered by the officer during the stop and frisk. The district court referred Defendant’s motion to a magistrate. The magistrate recommended that the evidence did not indicate that the officer had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was dangerous. However, the district court did not grant his motion to suppress. At issue in this case is whether the officer complied with the Fourth Amendment when the officer conducted the stop and frisk.
Under Terry v. Ohio, the test for whether a stop and frisk is lawful is to determine if the officer had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was both armed and dangerous at the time of the stop and frisk. This question is two-fold: the officer has to have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and that the suspect is dangerous. In this case, the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion that Defendant Robinson was armed at the time of the traffic stop and frisk was not at issue due to the anonymous tip. However, because this case arose in West Virginia, and West Virginia allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons, the question on appeal was whether the police had reasonable suspicion that Defendant Robinson was dangerous at the time of the traffic stop and frisk.
Second, the Court looked at the circumstances surrounding the stop. These included that there was an anonymous tip, that Defendant Robinson failed to answer the officer’s question of whether he had a gun on his person, and that Defendant Robinson was in a “high-crime area” at the time of the stop. The Court concluded that the circumstances did not give the officer reasonable suspicion. Instead, Defendant Robinson was otherwise cooperative during his encounter with the police, he never made a gesture that he was reaching for a weapon, and the officer did not give Defendant Robinson enough time to respond to the question about whether he was armed. Even though Defendant Robinson was in a high-crime area, the Court reasoned that this was just the area where you would expect to find people carrying a weapon to protect themselves.
Looking at the Totality of the Circumstances, the Fourth Circuit Reversed the District Court’s Decision Denying Defendant Robinson’s Motion to Suppress and Vacated His Conviction and Sentence.
On February 1, 2016, the Fourth Circuit amended its opinion in the civil case, Aikens v. Ingram (as amended), holding that the Feres “incident to service” test applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging constitutional violations that arise out of or in the course of activity incident to federal military service. Because Appellant alleged a constitutional violation that occurred while he was on active duty, while he was deployed, and through his Department of Defense email, Feres bars recovery under § 1983.
In 2001, Appellant Frederick Aikens (“Aikens”) was promoted to full colonel of the 139th Rear Operations Center of the North Carolina National Guard. Respondent Peter von Jess (“von Jess”) was named executive officer and a subordinate to Aikens. In December 2002, Aikens gave von Jess a negative officer evaluation report, which von Jess appealed to Respondent William E. Ingram (“Ingram”), arguing that Aikens evaluation was made with malice.
In 2003, while Aikens was deployed to Kuwait and von Jess remained in North Carolina, Paul Jones (“Jones”) and Brian McCarthy (“McCarthy”), information technology personnel, used illegal means to read and forward around 130 of Aikens’ personal emails to von Jess. Von Jess used those emails to compose a damning memorandum to the North Carolina Governor’s chief of staff, alleging that Aikens planned to overthrow the Adjutant General. Von Jess also forward the emails to the Department of the Army Inspector General (“DAIG”).
In May 2004, DAIG found six instances of misconduct on Aikens’ part, even though DAIG concluded Jones and McCarthy improperly accessed Aikens’ emails. DAIG provided such findings to the Governor of North Carolina and Ingram. Ingram forwarded the findings to Lieutenant General Russel Honoré (“Honoré”), who withdrew federal recognition from Aikens, resulting in Aikens’ constructive termination. Aikens subsequently transferred to the retired reserve.
On April 27, 2006, Aikens sued von Jess and Ingram in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that they facilitated unconstitutional searches and seizures of his personal emails while he was deployed in Kuwait. In support, he claimed that von Jess and Ingram, motivated by revenge, authorized and directed McCarthy and Jones to send Aikens’ incriminating emails to von Jess because of Aikens contentious history with von Jess.
Von Jess and Ingram moved for summary judgment for two reasons. (1) Aikens had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails because Army Regulations made clear that emails sent and received over the Department of Defense computer system could be monitored. (2) Aikens’ claims are nonjusticiable under Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). The district court granted Von Jess’ and Ingram’s motion for summary judgment, which Aikens appealed.
The Fourth Circuit considered de novo the threshold legal question of whether the district court properly abstained from ruling on Aikens’ claims, taking all facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
The district court granted summary judgment on Aikens’ claim for equitable relief, relying on Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971), which sets forth a four-factor test for reviewability of claims based on internal military affairs. Though in his reply brief, Aikens only requests damages, when he first sued von Jess and Ingram, Aikens also requested equitable relief. Typically, Mindes is only applicable to claims for equitable relief, but Aikens abandoned his claim for equitable relief. Further, the Fourth Circuit found that the Mindes test was inapplicable in this case because, in the Fourth Circuit, the Mindes test has only been applied to internal personnel matters, such as challenges to convening of retention boards and military discharge, which is not similar to the case here of improper email monitoring.
The Fourth Circuit looked at the evolution of the Feres test to determine if Feres barred Aikens from seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Feres first applied to Federal Tort Claims Acts claims, barring government liability for injuries to service persons where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. The Supreme Court then extended the Feres “incident to service” test to causes of action outside the Federal Tort Claims Act, including for Bivens actions, or constitutional claims brought against federal officers. However, neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit had extended the Feres test to apply to constitutional claims brought against state officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In this case, the Fourth Circuit decided to the Feres test to § 1983 actions against state officers for two reasons. First, suits under § 1983 and Bivens address constitutional violations by government officials, it is logical to extend the Feres test to § 1983 actions when it applies to Bivens actions. Second, courts generally do not expand liability for injuries arising out of military service to maintain separation of powers. Accordingly, the court decided not to allow damages actions pursuant to § 1983 against state officials for injuries suffered incident to service, which is foreclosed against federal officials, when Congress has not expressly authorized them.
The Fourth Circuit then addressed whether the Feres test applied to the case at hand by determining whether the search and seizure of Aikens’ emails arose out or of were in the course of activity incident to service. To determine whether Feres applies, courts look to whether specific suits call into question military discipline and decision-making, requiring judicial intrusion upon military matters. The Supreme Court interprets the Feres test broadly. The Feres test applies to all injuries suffered by military personnel that are even remotely related to the individual’s status as a member of the military. Application of the Feres test does not require that the plaintiff be on duty and does not depend on the military status of the defendant.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit concluded that Aikens’ alleged injuries arose out of activity incident to service because he was on active duty, was deployed in a war zone, and used a computer system set up by the Department of Defense for military personnel. The Court noted that it was irrelevant that Aikens was a National Guardsman because he was serving in a federal capacity when he was called to active duty. Further, the Court found irrelevant that von Jess and Ingram were not in Aiken’s direct chain of command.
Nevertheless, the Court abstained from reviewing Aikens’ § 1983 claim based on the Feres “incident to service” test. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Aikens’ case.

References: v. 
 § 841
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 641
 § 1381
 § 371
 § 1383
 § 641
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983
 § 1983