Opinion ID: 786890
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inventory Search of Burnette's Bags

Text: 21 As noted, Special Agent Poltrino testified at the suppression hearing that after Burnette was arrested in her residence in Quechee, Vermont, she asked the agent to bring a black satchel and a black leather briefcase with her to the police station. Burnette objected to this testimony, claiming that she had made no such request. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue, the district court concluded that it found Burnette's assertion unpersuasive and credited Poltrino's testimony that Burnette asked to bring both bags to the station. Therefore, it denied Burnette's motion to suppress evidence derived from the inventory of those bags. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 646-47, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (holding that police may reasonably search the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the administrative procedure that accompanies booking and jailing). 22 When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we uphold the court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Marshall, 348 F.3d 281, 284 (1st Cir.2003). We accord particular deference to the district court's findings of historical fact which rely on assessments of witness credibility. Where evaluations of witnesses' credibility are concerned, we are especially deferential to the district court's judgment; we may overturn its decision only if, after reviewing all of the evidence, we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Nee, 261 F.3d 79, 84 (1st Cir.2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo. Thus, if the lower court applies the wrong legal standard, no deference attaches, and we must proceed to correct the error. United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780, 783 (1st Cir.1991). 23 Burnette claims that the district court found Agent Poltrino's testimony to be incredible but incorrectly concluded that Burnette's failure to present witness testimony on the issue of the bags compelled it to credit Poltrino's testimony. She argues that this conclusion constituted a legal error that undermined the court's factual finding that Burnette requested that the bags be brought to the station. In addition, she argues that the court's finding was not supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Therefore, Burnette claims that the inventory search of her bags was unlawful, requiring the suppression of evidence found inside the bags. Furthermore, because the search warrant for Burnette's Vermont residence was based in part on identification cards that were discovered inside the bags, it was tainted by the illegal evidence, and all evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant should have been suppressed. 24 Burnette's claims are unpersuasive. First, the district court did not find Poltrino's testimony to be incredible and therefore did not apply an incorrect legal standard. Indeed, in its order denying the motions to suppress, the district court expressly stated: 25 Burnette claims that she did not ask to take the briefcase and bag to the police station. After holding an evidentiary hearing on this issue, I find her assertion unpersuasive. Instead, I credit Agent Poltrino's testimony that Burnette asked to have both bags brought to the station. 26 Moreover, the court's statements at the suppression hearing do not indicate, as Burnette suggests, that the court found Agent Poltrino's testimony `questionable' and `inherently improbable' but incorrectly believed that it was required to credit that testimony in the absence of any defense witness testimony to the contrary. Although the district court opined that asking the officers to bring two bags to the police station did not seem to be a particularly logical request, it explained that it was not being critical of Poltrino and that it ha[d] no reason to question the officer's testimony about it, because there's no one who's testified under oath in front of me, subject to cross-examination, whose credibility I can evaluate on that point. The court did not automatically credit Poltrino's testimony, however, and stated that it would consider whether the officer's testimony about how the satchel and purse got down to the station is credible or not. It explained that it would have to make [that] judgment based on the record that [it had]. Thus, based on Poltrino's testimony and other available record evidence, the district court determined that Poltrino was a credible witness and accepted his statement that Burnette asked to have the two bags brought to the station. 27 Burnette also argues that Poltrino's testimony was so internally inconsistent and inherently improbable on its face that the district court's credibility finding was clear error. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (explaining that a reviewing court may find clear error in a factual finding based on a credibility determination where, for example, [d]ocuments or objective evidence ... contradict the witness' story; or the story itself [is] so internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it). In particular, she claims that Poltrino initially testified that Burnette did not use words to indicate that she wanted her bags brought to the station and said nothing at all to the agents besides okay, or yes, I understand. Burnette argues that when the judge closely questioned Poltrino about the implausibility of his testimony, Poltrino changed his testimony and said that Burnette stated expressly: I want to take some bags with us. 28 A careful review of the record undercuts Burnette's claim that Poltrino's testimony was internally inconsistent. Poltrino initially stated that Burnette 29 indicated she wanted to take a couple of bags with her, and she nodded or motioned — her hands were behind her back. She nodded and motioned to the bags on the floor within a few feet of her that she wanted to take with her to the jail. 30 That statement, consistent with Poltrino's later testimony, suggests that Burnette indicated verbally that she wished to have some bags taken to the station and nodded or motioned to those particular bags with her head. Poltrino later stated that Burnette did not say anything other than okay, or yes, I understand in response to being told that she would be taken to the police office for booking; he did not claim that Burnette remained silent while indicating that she wished to bring along the two bags. Thus, Poltrino's testimony was not inconsistent on its face. Nor was that testimony so improbable that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it. Thus, the district court's finding that Burnette requested Poltrino to take her briefcase and bag to the police station was not clearly erroneous.