Opinion ID: 6333192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Suppress the “Phuket Video”

Text: Hunter argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress a video gathered through an operation in which the DEA and Thai authorities implanted a video recording device in a home in Phuket, Thailand. When considering a denial of a suppression motion we review findings of fact for clear error and legal questions de novo. United States v. Ferguson, 702 F.3d 89, 93 (2d Cir. 2012). Hunter argues that the installation of the camera constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment “has extraterritorial application to the conduct abroad of federal agents directed against United States citizens,” United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267, 280-81 (2d Cir. 1974), but this only extends to the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and not the warrant requirement. See In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157, 171 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[W]e hold that the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause has no extraterritorial application”). That is, “foreign searches of U.S. citizens conducted by U.S. agents are subject only to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.” Id. Even assuming, despite significant evidence to the contrary, that the initial entry to emplace the recording device and its subsequent collection were conducted by U.S. agents, rather than the Thai police, Hunter’s argument would still fail because the search was reasonable. The District Court 4 weighed Hunter’s “relatively limited” privacy interest when compared to the Government’s “substantial interest” in surveilling Hunter’s participation in a “vast criminal enterprise responsible for, among other things, murder and narcotics trafficking.” See Hunter App’x 188. Specifically, the District Court considered that Hunter was only a guest in the Phuket house, not a resident, only stayed for a short time, and therefore had a “relatively limited” privacy interest. Id. 129, 188. The District Court further observed that Thai police informed U.S. agents that the requisite Thai legal approvals were obtained for the installation of surveillance equipment. Hunter’s argument on appeal appears to be that he had a privacy interest in his conversations that is distinguishable from his limited general privacy interest in the guest house. This argument draws a distinction without a difference and has no basis in caselaw. The District Court did recognize that Hunter had some “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the residence, which covered his conversations and activities there. Id. 130; see United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313, 320 (2d Cir. 1997). Those interests were simply outweighed by the Government’s. In sum, there was no error, much less clear error, in the District Court’s decision to admit the Phuket Video into evidence.