Opinion ID: 202621
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Suppress Evidence Collected at McCarty's Apartment

Text: 7 McCarty contends that the district court should have suppressed the evidence collected by the police at his apartment on July 10, 2004, because the search warrant obtained by police stated that it could only be executed between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M., and police remained at his apartment until 10:35 P.M. We review a district court's decision to deny a motion to suppress de novo as to legal conclusions and for clear error as to factual findings. United States v. Vongkaysone, 434 F.3d 68, 73 (1st Cir.2006). 8 The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Even a search conducted pursuant to a warrant may be unreasonable given the manner in which the search has been conducted. See, e.g., United States v. Ramírez, 523 U.S. 65, 71, 118 S.Ct. 992, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998) (Excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful.); cf. United States v. Young, 877 F.2d 1099, 1105 (1st Cir.1989) ([Nothing] forbids continuing a search at night, at least when doing so is reasonable.). 9 McCarty complains that the search of his apartment was unreasonable because it was conducted, in part, at night, whereas the warrant authorizing the search stated that the search could only be executed during the daytime. McCarty's concern about nighttime searches is not unprecedented, see, e.g., Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 498-99, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ([I]t is difficult to imagine a more severe invasion of privacy than the nighttime intrusion into a private home that occurred in this instance.), but nighttime searches are not per se unreasonable; rather, we apply a traditional reasonableness test to the search. Young, 877 F.2d at 1105. 10 In this case, the search warrant provided that nighttime began at 9:00 P.M. See also Me. R.Crim. P. 41(h) ([A] warrant shall direct that it be executed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. unless the judge or justice of the peace . . . authorizes its execution at another time.). 5 The search warrant team gained entry to the apartment at 8:57 P.M. and began its search at 8:58 P.M. Thus, even though they were cutting it very close, the police did in fact commence the search during daytime as defined by the warrant. The search continued until 10:35 P.M., but we have held that a search which began during the daytime but which continued through the nighttime is not necessarily unreasonable. Young, 877 F.2d at 1104-05; see also State v. Sargent, 875 A.2d 125, 127-28 (Me.2005) (finding no grounds for suppression where a search began before 9:00 P.M. but concluded at 11:00 P.M.). In fact, the search of McCarty's apartment was significantly less intrusive than the valid search conducted in Young, which began in the morning, and continued throughout the night and for two additional days. 877 F.2d at 1104. Furthermore, we have stated that: 11 [i]n considering the question of reasonableness [of a search], a court must assess the totality of the circumstances, including the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted. 12 United States v. Cofield, 391 F.3d 334, 336 (1st Cir.2004). Here, there is no evidence that McCarty was roused from his sleep, or that the search was particularly intrusive. To the contrary, when the search team knocked on the door, McCarty's roommate opened it, and the police found McCarty standing awake in his living room. McCarty was allowed a considerable degree of freedom during the search, which by all accounts was conducted in a very professional manner. Finally, there is no dispute that the search was well-justified given the report of weapons and drugs by McCarty's ex-girlfriend. 13 Thus, we conclude that the search of McCarty's apartment was reasonable, and that the district court was correct to have denied McCarty's motion to suppress the evidence collected from his apartment. 6