Opinion ID: 3036319
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Understanding the Scope of Our Review

Text: McNeill identifies several contradictions in the record in an attempt to disprove the officers’ assertions that the drugs and drug paraphernalia were readily apparent when the officers conducted the search for victims. He relies on both testimony from the 8 evidentiary hearing and from the trial in support of his argument. At the outset, then, we must comment on what portions of the record we can properly review. In arguing that the search was not proper in scope, McNeill references contradictions between testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing and testimony later presented at trial. However, the District Court, in reaching its decision on the pre-trial motion to suppress, only had the benefit of the evidentiary hearing testimony and not the subsequent trial testimony. In this context, some Courts of Appeals have held that, when reviewing a District Court’s ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress, an appellate court is limited to the record that was before the District Court and cannot supplement its analysis with testimony that later comes out at trial. See United States v. Hicks, 978 F.2d 722, 724 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“An appellate court should not rely on evidence first produced at trial to reverse a pre-trial denial of a suppression motion not renewed at trial.”). Thus, where testimony at trial potentially casts doubt on the veracity of earlier testimony, the proper course is for the defendant to renew his motion to suppress. See, e.g., Hicks, 978 F.2d at 724; United States v. Thomas, 875 F.2d 559, 562 n.2 (6th Cir. 1989) (“Unless the district court is given an opportunity to correct the error [upon a renewed motion to suppress], an appellate court cannot review evidence presented at trial which casts doubt upon a pretrial suppression motion.”). Were we to adopt this rationale, McNeill’s failure to renew his suppression motion before the District Court might limit the scope of our review to the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing and not that presented at trial. 9 While we are mindful of how our colleagues in other circuits have resolved this question, we find it unnecessary at this time to adopt a new rule of practice that a criminal defendant must renew his suppression motion at trial or risk limiting the scope of appellate review. This is because McNeill’s claim that the pre-trial suppression ruling is undermined by potentially contradictory trial testimony fails even if we address the merits of his claim, reviewing the facts for clear error and exercising plenary review over the legality of the search. We further believe this is a prudent course of action because the parties did not have the opportunity to address this issue fully in their briefs. We thus proceed to the merits of all of McNeill’s suppression arguments. i. Potential Discrepancies in Testimony Presented at the Evidentiary Hearing Looking first at the record of the evidentiary hearing, McNeill argues that Lieutenant Tempalsky was not credible in his testimony about what was in plain sight in the motel room, and that Leslie Sanchez’s testimony proves this. At the evidentiary hearing, Tempalsky testified that he saw the grinder box and Ziploc bags in plain sight when he entered the room and saw the black backpack and Timberland box through the open closet. Sanchez, by contrast, testified that she had not seen any of those items when she had been in the room earlier that morning, nor could she remember whether the closet door was open. Were we to credit Sanchez’s testimony, it would tend toward the conclusion that the officers conducted a general exploratory search rather than one circumscribed by the exigency of looking for victims. 10 We are not reviewing this contradictory testimony with a blank slate, however, as we have the benefit of the District Court’s ruling on this issue. The Court addressed the contradictory accounts of Tempalsky and Sanchez, “made individualized assessments of the credibility of each witness and assigned appropriate weight to the testimony based on [its] conclusions with respect to such.” Ultimately, the Court found Tempalsky to be credible and rejected the testimony of Sanchez because it did not have confidence in her veracity. “As we have stated[,] ‘assessments of credibility by the trial court are entitled to great deference at the appellate level.’” United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d at 464 (quoting United States v. Brothers, 75 F.3d 845, 853 (3d Cir. 1996). Our review of the testimony from the evidentiary hearing leaves us convinced that Lieutenant Tempalsky’s testimony had at least an indicia of reliability, and thus the District Court’s determination was not clearly erroneous.4 ii. Potential Discrepancies Between Testimony at the Evidentiary 4 In other portions of his brief, McNeill questions the police officers’ credibility more generally, claiming that the totality of the circumstances suggest that the officers were disingenuous in conducting the search. Appellant’s Br. 20–21. He cites, inter alia, that Tempalsky and other narcotics officers were the first to arrive at the scene of a domestic violence call, that Tempalsky did not secure the search warrant himself, and that 911 tapes suggest that the Mayor of Linden was informed that there was a large quantity of drugs in the room just minutes after the search warrant was issued. However, the District Court specifically considered each of these factors in a thorough evidentiary hearing. At the end of that hearing, the Court found the police officers and the Mayor credible. On appeal, McNeill fails to present us with any evidence to suggest that those credibility determinations were clearly erroneous. 11 Hearing and Testimony at Trial While the District Court credited Tempalsky’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing, McNeill argues that subsequent testimony at the trial casts doubt on the Court’s credibility determination. Specifically, at the evidentiary hearing, Lieutenant Tempalsky claimed to have conducted a warrantless search lasting one to two minutes. At trial, another officer at the scene during the search, Officer Evan, testified that he was present in the room for 15 to 20 minutes. According to McNeill, Officer Evan’s testimony undermines Tempalsky’s assertion that the search was quick, which raises the suspicion that it exceeded the proper scope of the exigencies present. We first query whether these statements, taken in context, actually demonstrate a discrepancy in the officers’ testimony. In all major respects, Officer Evan’s testimony is consistent with that of Lieutenant Tempalsky. Evan testified that he, Lieutenant Tempalsky and two other officers— Detective Fortuna and Officer Hatzelhoffer—were present for the search of McNeill’s motel room. He further testified that the officers looked around the room and did not see a victim, but did observe drug packaging in an open dresser drawer and a grinder box on the nightstand. Evan testified that Tempalsky then “decided [that the officers] would have to obtain a search warrant to go any further.” Evan continued: “[A]fter ascertaining there was nobody else there, I spoke with Lieutenant Tempalsky explaining that he can contact his narcotic boys. I was going to be doing [the] domestic end of this. I’d be leaving, going to headquarters after I go outside 12 . . . . Also, Officer Hatzelhoffer would remain behind to secure the room until we get the search warrants.” While Evan testified that he was in the room for “15 minutes, 20 minutes, if that,” he never clarified whether the actual search took that long or whether that time period also included the post-search conversations between himself and Tempalsky about who was going to take on what role in the case. We turn to Lieutenant Tempalsky. He testified that the actual search took “[l]ess than of — less than — maybe a minute. Maybe a minute [or] two. Maybe a minute.” He then left the room with Detective Fortuna and had Officer Hatzelhoffer secure the room. Tempalsky stated that he remained “there” (presumably next to or even in the room) for “maybe a half hour” after he assigned Hatzelhoffer to secure the room. During this time, he was waiting for other officers to arrive to begin the process of applying for a search warrant. Looking at Lieutenant Tempalsky’s testimony alongside that of Officer Evan, it seems plausible that the actual search took only one or two minutes, but that the officers spent nearly 30 minutes in the immediate aftermath determining who would secure the room, apply for the search warrant, and handle the different aspects of the case. In this context, Officer Evan’s testimony at trial concerning the time of the search is insufficient to upset the District Court’s determination that Lieutenant Tempalsky was a credible witness. The same is true of the other potential discrepancies McNeill raises between 13 Lieutenant Tempalsky’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing and Officer Evan’s testimony at trial. Evan testified that he, Tempalsky, Officer Hatzelhoffer, and Detective Fortuna were all present for the search, while Tempalsky could only “positively recall” that he and Fortuna were present. These statements are not directly inconsistent because Tempalsky did not state that only he and Fortuna were in the room, but merely that he knew at least he and Fortuna were there. McNeill also highlights a potential discrepancy about who gave the officers the key to his motel room. Evan testified that the officers “located the [motel] manager” and “he gave permission to one of the maids to open the door” to McNeill’s room, while Tempalsky testified that he didn’t “have [an] independent recollection whether [the motel manager] handed [him] the key” or whether it came from the maid. Tempalsky did testify, however, that it was “[o]ne or the other” and that he didn’t “remember who it was.” These two accounts are also not directly contradictory, as it is consistent that the motel manager authorized a maid to open McNeill’s room and Tempalsky, having talked to both the manager and the maid about gaining entry to the room, could not remember precisely which one provided the key. Again, we fail to see clear error in the District Court’s determination that Lieutenant Tempalsky was a credible witness. b. Reviewing the Legality of the Scope of the Search in Light of the District Court’s Properly Found Facts Having concluded that the District Court’s finding that Lieutenant Tempalsky was a credible witness was not clearly erroneous, we must credit his testimony that he 14 observed the contraband in the course of his limited search for victims. Tempalsky testified that when he entered the room to check for victims he observed a box of Ziploc bags and a small box for a grinder on the nightstand; white, powdery residue on top of the dresser; and an open dresser drawer containing more Ziploc bags and small rubber bands. He further testified that one of the sliding closet doors was “slit” open and on the floor of the closet was a black backpack as well as an open shoe box that appeared to contain several hundred small cellophane bags, later determined to contain drugs. After ascertaining there were no victims present, the officers left the room and obtained a search warrant on the basis of the incriminating items they observed. 5 Based on Tempalsky’s account of the events, we do not believe the officers exceeded the scope of the search justified by the exigency of looking for victims. We would be faced with a very different case had Tempalsky testified that he found the Ziploc bags or the drug residue in a closed drawer in the nightstand or between the mattresses, as those are not places where a victim could be. However, on the basis of the facts found by the District Court and its credibility determinations, we hold that the scope of the search was properly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation—namely, looking for another victim of the assault that occurred in the motel room. Within the 5 Indeed, having observed the contraband in plain view, the officers would have been justified in seizing it without a warrant. See Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 (1987) (noting that, in the course of an exigent-circumstances search, police can seize incriminating items in plain view). However, they chose instead to seek a warrant, and thus all of the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid warrant. 15 scope of this search, the officers then observed the drugs and evidence of drug dealing in plain sight. We discern no Fourth Amendment violation; thus, we affirm the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress.