Source: http://openjurist.org/673/f2d/554
Timestamp: 2015-12-02 00:05:19
Document Index: 720497796

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 841', '§ 924', '§ 6', 'Art. 1445', '§ 4052', '§ 6']

673 F2d 554 United States v. Irizarry | OpenJurist
673 F. 2d 554 - United States v. Irizarry HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 673 F.2d.
673 F2d 554 United States v. Irizarry 673 F.2d 554
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Juan Guilbe IRIZARRY and Jose Garcia Rodriguez, Defendants,Appellants.
Heard Sept. 9, 1981.Decided March 19, 1982.
Before trial, the defendants moved on the basis of stipulated facts to suppress all evidence found in the hotel room and bathroom. The trial court denied the motions. At a bench trial, the defendants objected to the use of the seized evidence, on the basis of the agents' live testimony. The trial court overruled the objections and found all three defendants guilty of having aided and abetted each other in possessing a measurable quantity of marijuana and in possessing cocaine with intent to distribute it. 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 844. The court also found defendant Guilbe guilty of possession of a firearm while aiding and abetting the others in their possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2). Guilbe and Garcia took these appeals. Farinas chose not to rely on the courts and took off.
II. The Fourth Amendment Challenges
A. Standing of Appellant Garcia
In order to challenge on Fourth Amendment grounds the use of evidence at one's trial, one must demonstrate "a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched". United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 92, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 2553, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980). The hotel room here was registered to appellant Guilbe. Appellant Garcia, however, offered no evidence of any personal interest in the room beyond his being "merely present". Indeed, he affirmatively sought to deny any connection with the room or its contents. It was therefore perfectly legitimate to introduce evidence seized from the room against him at trial.
We realize that the government did not challenge Garcia's standing, either before the trial court or on appeal. That fact, however, does not alone bring us within the rule of Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 208-11, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 1645-47, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981), in which a defendant's standing was held to be beyond further challenge. In Steagald the government failed to challenge facts from which the defendant's standing could reasonably have been inferred. In this case, Garcia never carried his initial burden of offering facts from which a court might reasonably infer his standing. See United States v. Miller, 636 F.2d 850, 853-54 (1st Cir. 1980). Moreover, in Steagald the government appeared to have raised the standing issue as part of a last-minute shift in litigation tactics. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that the government was deliberately "sandbagging" the district court or shifting strategies.
B. Legitimacy of the Agents' Activities
Since the search of the hotel room followed immediately upon the arrest of the defendants, one might be tempted to analyze it as a search "incident to an arrest", undertaken to preserve the officers' safety and prevent the destruction of evidence. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). We therefore note explicitly that the government does not invoke the Chimel exception here, because none of the items seized was within the "immediate control" of the defendants at the time of their arrest in the hallway. Id. at 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040.
1. Exigent Circumstances-Swint's Entry
In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2031-32, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), the Supreme Court summarized the law of warrantless searches as follows:
This doctrine is often expressed in the shorthand phrase, "warrantless searches are per se unreasonable in the absence of exigent circumstances". Id. at 479, 91 S.Ct. at 2044.
"Exigent circumstances" have traditionally been found in those crisis situations when there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1949, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (warrantless entry into a burning building to put out a blaze). See also Chimel v. California, supra (search "incident to arrest"); Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (warrantless entry in hot pursuit of an armed robber); Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 40-43, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1633-1635, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (warrantless entry to prevent destruction of evidence where such destruction is reasonably thought imminent); United States v. Zurosky, 614 F.2d 779 (1st Cir. 1979) (warrantless entry into warehouse at 4:25 a. m. when activity inside reasonably suggests that a breaking and entering is taking place); United States v. Edwards, 602 F.2d 458, 468 (1st Cir. 1979) (warrantless entry to prevent destruction of heroin reasonably thought imminent); United States v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117, 1126 (1st Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 958, 99 S.Ct. 1499, 59 L.Ed.2d 771 (1979) (warrantless entry and reentry of a boat where drowning suspected and tidal flow created need for swift action).
In this case, we agree that the government has carried its burden of demonstrating a "compelling need" for Officer Swint to enter the hotel room and perform a post-arrest "security check", in order to determine whether another, potentially armed, individual was hiding within the room. The record on this point is somewhat spare and makes it a close issue. Nevertheless, we believe that it adequately demonstrates that Agent Swint's search was not motivated by mere curiosity, but rather by a legitimate concern for the safety of his fellow officers. It was late at night. They had come to the hotel to arrest one person. Three people had emerged from the room after a five-to-seven minute delay. Most significantly, one of the three had produced a gun inside the room. Agent Swint was entirely reasonable in suspecting that a fourth person, also armed, remained within. Compare United States v. Gamble, 473 F.2d 1274 (7th Cir. 1973). His entry was necessary to ensure that the potential fourth person did not attempt to surprise the agents in the hallway and thereby secure the escape of the other three. Agent Swint obviously could not have sought a warrant to perform such a security check. "The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others." Warden v. Hayden, supra, 387 U.S. at 298-99, 87 S.Ct. at 1645-46. See also W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 6.4, at 431 (1978 & Supp.1981) and cases discussed therein.
Having established Agent Swint's right to enter the hotel room we must also establish that the scope and manner of his search were "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation". Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1882-1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Agent Swint entered the living room and walked into the bathroom. Nothing in the record suggests that his search ever deviated from a path corresponding to an objectively reasonable hunt for an armed fourth person. His search was thus in proper proportion to the exigency that authorized it; it was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
While carrying out his security check of the bathroom and hotel room, Agent Swint observed marijuana residue in the bathroom and marijuana butts in the living room ashtray. After completing his security check, Agent Swint seized those items. In Coolidge, supra, the plurality opinion stated that where a police officer has a prior legitimate justification for an intrusion, in the course of which he inadvertently comes across a piece of incriminating evidence, he may seize that evidence without a warrant. 403 U.S. at 466-70, 91 S.Ct. at 2038-40. We have already concluded that Swint legitimately undertook a quick check of the hotel room and bathroom to ensure that no potentially armed fourth person remained inside. Ample evidence on the record supports the conclusion that the marijuana in the bathtub and the butts in the ashtray were located where one could inadvertently see them while carrying out such a security check. He was therefore justified in seizing the evidence without a warrant.
3. Agent Philip's Entry into the Bathroom
When Agent Philip was standing on the bathroom floor, he could not see any seizable evidence. All he saw was a displaced soundproofing panel. The government has not argued that as he looked at the displaced panel, it was "immediately apparent" to Agent Philip that he was looking at evidence of a crime. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 466, 91 S.Ct. at 2038. Nor would such an argument be plausible, since Agent Philip did not even consider seizing the panel as evidence. Instead, Agent Philip became suspicious that he might be able to find evidence if he looked around above the ceiling. He therefore undertook a search to see what might be up there. He climbed up onto the toilet and looked inside. From that vantage point, he saw "the first something". Although he could not tell what the "something" was, he reached inside and took it out. He then saw that it was "a weapon, and a package of green weed". At that moment, it is clear that Agent Philip had evidence in plain view. "But it is important to keep in mind that, in the vast majority of cases, any evidence seized by the police will be in plain view, at least at the moment of seizure. The problem with the 'plain view' doctrine has been to identify the circumstances in which plain view has legal significance rather than being the normal concomitant of any search, legal or illegal." Id. at 465, 91 S.Ct. at 2037.
We do not question the reasonableness of Agent Philip's suspicion that if he searched above the ceiling he might find evidence. That is not the point. What is significant is that, without any prior approval by a detached magistrate, he launched himself on an exploratory search. And he did so at a time when "(t)here was no indication that evidence would be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a search warrant." Mincey v. Arizona, supra, 437 U.S. at 394, 98 S.Ct. at 2414. In fact, the only person with a right to enter the hotel room was in custody. When Agent Philip was standing on the bathroom floor, no evidence was in plain view. His warrantless search for such evidence was not justified by any exigent circumstances* and was therefore contrary to the Fourth Amendment. Cf. United States v. Jackson, 576 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1979) (officer stood in plain view of an open file drawer; his search through the file for evidence was unconstitutional, no matter how strong his suspicion that he would find evidence there).
In its brief, the government cites United States v. Garcia, 616 F.2d 210, 212 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Arredondo-Hernandez, 574 F.2d 1312, 1314-15 (5th Cir. 1978); and James v. United States, 418 F.2d 1150, 1151 n.1 (D.C.Cir.1969) for the proposition that "the plain view doctrine is not made inapplicable because a law enforcement agent may have to crane his neck, bend over, or squat". Examination of those cases, however, reveals that they were discussing a different "plain view" problem, a problem more accurately termed one of "open view". They were all analyzing the question of whether an officer intrudes upon a person's privacy-whether he conducts a search-when he looks at items that are visible to the public. Thus, the complete quote in James, supra, reads as follows:
Coolidge authorizes warrantless seizure of items in plain view only "to supplement the prior justification" for the warrantless search. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 466, 91 S.Ct. at 2038. The activities an officer may undertake to expand his field of view are therefore restrained by his excuse for the warrantless entry. The restraint is not a straitjacket: many emergency situations will justify fairly energetic undertakings. But it must always be the exigency that justifies the action; the "plain view" doctrine cannot, by itself, permit an officer to indulge in a frolic of his own. Id. at 468, 91 S.Ct. at 2039. In sum, where an officer's presence is limited to a particular justification or purpose, what is in plain view is restricted to what could be inadvertently seen when his movements are made pursuant to that purpose. We need not analyze what may have actually been in his mind; movements clearly outside the scope of his mandate cannot be termed inadvertent. Cf. United States v. Weber, 668 F.2d 552 at 554-555 (1st Cir., 1981).
I join fully in Chief Judge Coffin's opinion, but wish to comment separately on the dissent. There is always a problem when a court applies the rule that warrantless searches, with defined exceptions, are unreasonable per se, e.g., Katz v. United States, 1967, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, to strike down an otherwise concededly reasonable search. And it is always nettlesome that the rule, designed to protect the public at large, invariably results in benefiting undeserving members. Given the constitutional requirement, the strength of the rule, however, is not in its flexibility, but in its inflexibility.
To come to more basic matters, I am troubled by the concept of measuring a hotel guest's privacy by what is customarily used. Would it permit officers a free look under the carpet? In the toilet tank? A guest might wish to put something private in a place not customarily used to keep it from an overly inquisitive chambermaid, or, indeed, from prying trespassers. Nor does it seem persuasive that a guest could not complain if a repairman were to enter the ceiling space from outside. Management could insist on employees entering anywhere in case of need. United States v. Bomengo, 5 Cir., 1978, 580 F.2d 173, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1117, 99 S.Ct. 1022, 59 L.Ed.2d 75. The fact that this diminishes the guest's expectation of privacy does not confer government rights. Stoner v. California, 1964, 376 U.S. 483, 489, 84 S.Ct. 889, 893, 11 L.Ed.2d 856; United States v. Jeffers, 1951, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59.
Furthermore, dwelling on the use of the ceiling's being an abuse of his tenancy-a matter between him and the hotel-cannot avoid the fact that the officers could not reach the gun without further trespassing on the privacy Guilbe purchased by renting the room. If Jones stole an envelope, even a government envelope, and put drugs inside and locked the whole thing in his suitcase, the officers could not justify their invasion of the suitcase by pointing out that Jones had no right to the envelope. Even assuming no right of privacy in the ceiling, there were substantial rights in the bathroom. In the dissent's seeming principal authority, United States v. Agapito, 2 Cir., 1980, 620 F.2d 324, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834, 101 S.Ct. 107, 66 L.Ed.2d 40, a motel case, the court said, "We emphasize that the agents had a legal right to be where they were." Id. at 331. Only with difficulty, and the invocation of the plain view exception, has the court supported the search of the bathtub. To stand on the toilet and reach into the ceiling aperture, went a big step beyond. I do not quarrel with weighing the need against the invasion, but I believe the dissent substantially misapprehends both.
To return to the beginning, unlike the dissent, particularly in its discussion of Chimel v. California, 1969, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, I do not read New York v. Belton, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), as opting for judicial flexibility in determining, on a case to case basis, what is reasonable. Rather, the Court complained that "(w)hen a person cannot know how a court will apply a settled principle to a recurring factual situation, that person cannot know the scope of his constitutional protection, nor can a policeman know the scope of his authority." Id. 101 S.Ct. at 2864. A warrant is standard procedure. To stretch ourselves to devise excuses only encourages laxity and, ultimately, more judicial fodder.
1. The Supreme Court's discussion in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143-44 n.12, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430-31 n.12, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) seems to me to require a holding here that Guilbe, as well as Garcia, lacks standing to assert a Fourth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court there makes clear that standing exists only if the record contains some facts from which one might infer a "legitimate expectation of privacy." See United States v. Miller, 636 F.2d 850 (1st Cir. 1980). Such an expectation is "legitimate" only if it is one that "society is prepared to recognize as reasonable," and it must have a "source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." The only fact in the record here suggesting that Guilbe might have had a "reasonable" or "legitimate" expectation of privacy in the space above the ceiling when (as this court today holds) Garcia did not, is that Room 360 was registered to Guilbe (though he was apparently not living there). This fact alone, in my view, is insufficient. Compare United States v. Weber, at 560.
For one thing, the right that Guilbe obtained from the hotel to remain under the ceiling of Room 360 was not a right to break through the partition and reach into a space over the ceiling. It was not a right to invade any niche, cubbyhole, conduit, passage, air conditioning vent, water pipe or any other imaginable place outside the room's physical boundaries-particularly when he could break through to such space only through the use of physical force. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 145-47, 99 S.Ct. at 431-32. Guilbe had no right to exclude others from the areas between the walls and ceilings of adjoining hotel rooms. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 143-44 n.12, 99 S.Ct. at 430-31 n.12; Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 105, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). Had a hotel employee, repairman, or any other person been quietly working in a space between the walls, having entered that space from outside the room (or for that matter from inside the room assuming a legitimate presence there) Guilbe could not have complained. Rather, it is the hotel that had every right to complain about Guilbe's unlawful entry through force into a space that it owned, controlled and did not rent. Cf. Civil Code of Puerto Rico, Art. 1445, 31 L.P.R.A. § 4052. The Supreme Court has written that a "burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during off season," despite a "thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy" has no expectation that is "legitimate." Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 143-44 n.12, 99 S.Ct. at 430-31 n.12. How can a registration slip here make any more "legitimate" Guilbe's interest in a space outside the physical bounds of his room?
For another thing, unlike the summer cabin burglar, Guilbe could not even have had much of a subjective expectation of privacy in an open cubbyhole-at least none which he took any reasonable precaution to protect. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. at 105, 100 S.Ct. at 2561; Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. at 152, 99 S.Ct. at 435; United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 11, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2483, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). Guilbe and the other suspects left the ceiling panel ajar-clear notice to anyone entering the room that something was wrong with the ceiling. This fact was likely to draw a hotel employee to investigate the space rather than to warn outsiders that privacy was intended. See Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp. 988, 992 (D.N.H.1976). Cf. United States v. Cleary, 656 F.2d 1302, 1305 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Ramapuram, 632 F.2d 1149, 1156 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1030, 101 S.Ct. 1739, 68 L.Ed.2d 225 (1981).
The room that Guilbe rented was not in his own home, a condominium, or an apartment house. It was in a hotel. As both the Second Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have recognized, although "an individual's Fourth Amendment rights do not evaporate when he rents a motel room, the extent of the privacy he is entitled to reasonably expect may very well diminish.... (T)here is ... an element of public or shared property in motel surroundings that is entirely lacking in the enjoyment of one's home." United States v. Agapito, 620 F.2d 324, 331 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834, 101 S.Ct. 107, 66 L.Ed.2d 40 (1980) (quoting United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941, 99 S.Ct. 2882, 61 L.Ed.2d 310 (1979)). The additional facts that the space at issue here was not Guilbe's but the hotel's, that it was apparently entered by force, that it was left in a condition that would attract, rather than repel, investigation, all suggest that this space between the walls was not a "place in which society is prepared, because of its code of values and its notions of custom and civility, to give deference to manifested expectations of privacy." United States v. Taborda, 635 F.2d 131, 137-38 (2d Cir. 1980). If I am correct, then, as the court holds in the case of Garcia, there are not sufficient facts in the record "from which a court might reasonably infer ... standing." Majority Opinion at 557. And, even though the district court did not discuss standing, its decision must be affirmed. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943).
I find no absolute rule of law, either in the Constitution itself or in prior precedent, requiring reversal here. The Constitution itself uses the phrase "unreasonable" searches and seizures, a word that, as the Supreme Court held in Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 536-37, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1736-35, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), calls for "balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails." Indeed, in language recently quoted with approval by the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Black pointed out that the Fourth Amendment
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 509-10, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2059-60, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (concurring and dissenting opinion) (quoted with approval in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372-73, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3098-99, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976)). Given the risk to safety posed by the nearby presence of guns, and the limited privacy interest, this search seems to me to be "reasonable."
There are, of course, a plethora of subsidiary legal rules, stating, for example, that warrantless searches of areas in a house outside the immediate control of an arrested person are unlawful, Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); that warrantless searches of an automobile's passenger compartment (pursuant to an arrest) are lawful, New York v. Belton, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); that warrantless seizures of items in "plain view" are lawful, Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968), and so forth. See generally W.R. LaFave Search and Seizure § 6.7 (1978). These subsidiary rules, however, do not seem to require that a reasonable search be held unlawful or an unreasonable search be allowed simply because the search falls on the wrong side of the line that they draw, for there is no absolute line that will separate for all future cases the safe from the dangerous, the reasonable from the unreasonable. Rather, these opinions, offering the guidance of precedent for police and courts alike, appear sufficiently flexible to take differing circumstances into account, compare Chimel v. California, supra, with New York v. Belton, supra, and nowhere seem to relieve a court of all responsibility for assessing the circumstances of an individual case against the ultimate constitutional touchstone of "reasonableness."
In any event, the rules set forth in recent Supreme Court decisions seem to me to support, rather than to condemn, the search at issue here. The strongest contrary precedent is Chimel v. California, supra, in which the Court condemns warrantless searches outside the area subject to the arrested person's immediate control. Chimel, however, concerns a search of a house-where privacy expectations are explicitly protected by the Fourth Amendment, which consecrates "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." (Emphasis added.) In the case of houses, one might wish to err, if at all, on the side of privacy. When the court has considered places where the interest in privacy is less intense, however, it has allowed warrantless searches well outside the area delineated in Chimel. Thus, in Belton v. New York, supra, the Court allowed a search of a car's glove compartment for marijuana well after the suspects had been taken away from the car and there was no possibility that they might have obtained access to the compartment to destroy evidence. See Robbins v. California, --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 2844, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. at 12-13, 97 S.Ct. at 2484-2485. Since the privacy interest in the ceiling space here is significantly weaker than that in an automobile glove compartment and since it is more important to look nearby for a gun than to look across the road for marijuana, it seems to me that this is a stronger case for allowing the search than Belton. Chimel, which concerns a home, not an unrented ceiling space in a motel, does not hold to the contrary.
Finally, I might add that affirmance of the district court's opinion for the reasons here stated would not authorize the general search of a student's dormitory ("a student's home away from home"), Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp. at 997, or bring about the other evils that the court fears would accompany an extension of the "plain view" doctrine.1
At the time Agent Philip "ascended the throne", the six agents had the three defendants completely under control. The defendants were seated on the bed, unarmed, and either were handcuffed or could easily have been handcuffed. The agents knew that no one else was on the premises. The fact that a gun was known to be hidden somewhere cannot, by itself, transform the situation into a crisis. A gun is not a bomb; it is dangerous only if a defendant is holding it. Were we to find an exigency whenever any plausible or implausible sequence of events might link a defendant with a gun's potential hiding place, we would allow warrantless searches of unlimited scope. "The only reasoned distinction is one between a search of the person arrested and the area within his reach on the one hand, and more extensive searches on the other." Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 766, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2041, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).