Opinion ID: 2647388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stop and Search of the Vehicle

Text: We first consider the defendants’ argument that the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained during the stop and search of the vehicle. In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we review its findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Diaz, 519 F.3d 56, 61 (1st Cir. 2008). “Absent an error of law, we will uphold a refusal to suppress evidence as long as the refusal is supported by some reasonable view of the record.” United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2003). The defendants submit two separate arguments. First, they argue that the stop of the vehicle constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Second, they contend that a law enforcement officer’s ensuing search of the vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. We shall address each argument in turn. -12-
The defendants submit that the district court erred in holding that Officer Gerrish’s stop of the vehicle was constitutional because it was based on reasonable articulable suspicion. We begin by setting forth the Fourth Amendment principles governing investigative stops. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968), the Supreme Court articulated the watershed principle that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” Temporary traffic stops are analogous to these so-called Terry stops. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). Stopping a vehicle and temporarily detaining its occupants constitutes a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981) (collecting cases); Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979). Because the defendants, as passengers in the stopped automobile, were seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, they may contest whether the stop of the vehicle meets Fourth Amendment standards. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 251 (2007); see United States v. Symonevich, 688 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2012).17 17 See also, e.g., United States v. Figueredo-Diaz, 718 F.3d 568, 576 & n.5 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. Crippen, 627 F.3d 1056, 1063 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Cortez-Galaviz, 495 -13- A warrantless traffic stop satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement, U.S. Const. amend. IV, if “police officers have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing—a suspicion that finds expression in specific, articulable reasons for believing that a person may be connected to the commission of a particular crime.” Lee, 317 F.3d at 31; see also United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989); United States v. Jones, 700 F.3d 615, 621 (1st Cir. 2012). To constitute reasonable suspicion, “the likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause, and it falls considerably short of satisfying a preponderance of the evidence standard.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (2002). The Supreme Court has eschewed, emphatically, any reliance on a rigid test or formula to give the concept substance. Rather, it has emphasized that the determination must be grounded in the “totality of the circumstances.” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417; see also Jones, 700 F.3d at 621; United States v. Coplin, 463 F.3d F.3d 1203, 1205 n.3 (10th Cir. 2007); United States v. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Soriano-Jarquin, 492 F.3d 495, 499-500 (4th Cir. 2007); 3 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 9.1(d), at 404-05 (3d ed. 2007) (noting that “[a]ny remaining doubt” as to whether passengers had standing to object to the stop of a vehicle or to the length of the passenger’s subsequent detention “was removed in Brendlin v. California”); 1 David S. Rudstein et al., Criminal Constitutional Law § 11.02(2)(b)(iii)(B) (2013) (“[A] passenger in a vehicle that is stopped by law enforcement has been ‘seized’ and therefore can challenge the validity of the police action in stopping the vehicle in which he was riding.”). -14- 96, 100 (1st Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, the Court has disciplined the reasonable suspicion standard by requiring “some objective manifestation” that the person stopped either is wanted for past criminal conduct, or is engaging or about to engage in such conduct. Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417 & n.2. A mere “hunch,” therefore, will not justify a stop. Terry, 392 U.S. at 22, 27. Information that is received from others in the course of an investigation, as the Court emphasized in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 147 (1972), varies in its “value and reliability”: Informants’ tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability. One simple rule will not cover every situation. Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. But in some situations—for example, when the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police aid and gives a description of his assailant, or when a credible informant warns of a specific impending crime—the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response. In short, in our search for “some objective manifestation,” we must recognize that, at bottom, the inquiry deals not with “hard certainties, but with probabilities.” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18. In the Supreme Court’s words: The idea that an assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion contains two elements, each of which must be present before a stop is permissible. First, the assessment must be based upon all of the -15- circumstances. The analysis proceeds with various objective observations, information from police reports, if such are available, and consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers. From these data, a trained officer draws inferences and makes deductions—inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person. The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. Long before the law of probabilities was articulated as such, practical people formulated certain commonsense conclusions about human behavior; jurors as factfinders are permitted to do the same—and so are law enforcement officers. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. The second element contained in the idea that an assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion is the concept that the process just described must raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. Id. at 418. With these principles in mind, we turn to the case before us. Here, the stop occurred after the police had received a report from store employees that suggested that the defendants may have engaged in, or attempted to engage in, credit card fraud. These clerks worked for an established business within the officers’ jurisdiction and, as part of the store’s sales force, their work undoubtedly included being alert for fraudulent activity at the store. Moreover, in a face-to-face situation, the officers -16- had an opportunity to judge the credibility of the clerks and the accuracy of their report. The Bull Moose clerks gave the officers specific information. They described their serial encounters with the defendants and specifically told the officers that two different defendants had attempted to use credit cards bearing the same name. The clerks further gave the police a description of the defendants’ vehicle, including the license plate number. They also provided, on the basis of their conversation with the defendants, the probable location of the defendants’ next stop. Although this encounter already gave the police officers a great deal of information upon which to formulate a suspicion of illegal activity, the officers went a step further before executing the stop and checked the clerks’ estimation of the defendants’ whereabouts. An officer went to the Toys “R” Us where, according to the clerks, the defendants might next appear. The officer found a vehicle matching the description of the defendants’ vehicle. The vehicle’s out-of-state license plate number matched that reported by the clerks, with the exception of one instance of inverted numerals. Shortly afterward, the officer observed the defendants approach the vehicle. They were carrying bags, suggesting that they had purchased items in the Toys “R” Us, as the clerks at the earlier establishment predicted they might do. The “men not only were in the right place at the right time but also fit the suspects’ descriptions.” Lee, 317 F.3d at 31. In short, only -17- after law enforcement officers had learned all of the facts surrounding the suspected criminal activity and had corroborated the details did Officer Gerrish stop the defendants’ vehicle. We think that this case is sufficiently similar to the situation that confronted us in Lee as to be controlled by the principles articulated in that case. There, a store employee contacted the police to report suspected attempted credit card fraud. Id. at 30. The employee told police that “a young Asian male had tried (but failed) to purchase a $2,300 wristwatch using not one but two platinum American Express cards ostensibly issued in the name of Zhi Lin.” Id. When a police officer arrived at the store’s parking lot, he observed a van containing two individuals matching the employee’s description. Id. The officer approached the vehicle, and the driver attempted to pull away before the officer forced him to stop. Id. We held that the “collocation of circumstances plainly satisfied the reasonable suspicion standard for an initial Terry stop.” Id. at 31. As in Lee, the circumstances surrounding the present defendants’ actions at Bull Moose and in the Toys “R” Us parking lot justified Officer Gerrish’s stop. The district court correctly concluded that the stop was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion.18 18 Mr. Campbell makes one additional argument about the initial stop of the vehicle. He submits that “there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed when the vehicle -18-
The defendants next challenge the district court’s determination that the warrantless search of the vehicle, from the drug-detection dog’s entrance into the vehicle through the search of the locked glove box, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The district court took the view that the defendants’ consent, as well as the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, brought that search within constitutional bounds. In examining this question, we are confronted at the beginning of our analysis by an important threshold question. The defendants base their challenge to the search of the automobile on their status as passengers in that automobile. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978), we have held squarely that passengers in an automobile who assert no property or possessory interest in a vehicle cannot be said to have the requisite expectation of privacy in the vehicle to was stopped.” Campbell Br. 19. Consequently, he continues, the warrant later issued for the search of the vehicle was invalid because it was based on the information discovered in an illegal stop. There are two problems with Mr. Campbell’s argument. First, he has conflated the standards for a Terry stop of a vehicle and for the issuance of a warrant. The officers needed only reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, and we already have determined that such suspicion was present. Second, Mr. Campbell’s argument neglects the importance of timing in a probable cause inquiry. Probable cause can “accrete[] gradually as an investigation progresses.” United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2003). Law enforcement can stop a car only on reasonable suspicion, and then “the circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion . . . and the developments that unfold[] during the Terry stop [can furnish] probable cause.” Id. -19- permit them to maintain that the search did not meet Fourth Amendment standards. United States v. Symonevich, 688 F.3d 12, 19, 21 (1st Cir. 2012).19 Mr. Campbell never has claimed a possessory interest in the vehicle.20 In his motion to suppress and at the hearing on that motion, Mr. Porteous asserted, forcefully, that he did not lease the car.21 To put it mildly, in taking those positions, neither 19 See also, e.g., Crippen, 627 F.3d at 1063 (holding that a passenger may challenge his seizure at a traffic stop but may not challenge the search of a vehicle); United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 96-97 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding that although a passenger had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area under a car mat where he hid contraband, he failed to demonstrate that such an expectation was objectively reasonable and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search). 20 In its opposition to the motion to suppress, the Government asserted that, in light of their lack of any possessory interest, the defendants could not litigate the search of the automobile. The district court did not address the issue. In this court, the defendants did not address the matter in their opening briefs, but the Government preserved adequately the issue by noting it in its brief and providing the controlling authority. Gov’t Br. 35 n.4 (citing United States v. Symonevich, 688 F.3d 12, 18-21 (1st Cir. 2012)); cf. Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 709 F.3d 49, 54 & n.4 (1st Cir. 2013) (noting that to preserve an issue for appeal, it generally must be raised before the district court and in a party’s opening brief). 21 We acknowledge that the district court determined, on the basis of Sergeant Chard’s testimony at the suppression hearing, that Mr. Porteous told the Sergeant that he had rented the car. Notably, the district court did not find that Mr. Porteous in fact had leased the car; the court merely determined that Mr. Porteous told the Sergeant that he had done so. Although Mr. Porteous’s statement to the Sergeant well may have given the officer a basis for believing that Mr. Porteous had apparent authority to consent to the search of the car (a question we need not decide today), for purposes of evaluating the district court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, we accept Mr. Porteous’s position that he did not have a -20- defendant has carried his burden to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. See United States v. Lipscomb, 539 F.3d 32, 35-36 (1st Cir. 2008) (“Before reaching the merits of a suppression challenge, the defendant carries the burden of establishing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the area searched . . . .”); id. at 36 (holding that the defendant lacked the expectation of privacy required to challenge a seizure where the defendant “actively disowned any interest in any of the seized items” and “repeatedly asserted” at the hearing on his motion to suppress that the contraband seized was not his).22 Accordingly, because neither Mr. Campbell nor possessory interest in the vehicle. Our analysis of this question is not contrary to the holding of the Supreme Court in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968). There, the defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he owned a particular suitcase because he justifiably believed that such testimony was necessary to establish the requisite standing to object to the search. Id. at 381. The Supreme Court held that such testimony could not be used against the defendant during trial to establish his guilt. Id. at 394. The situation here is materially different. No one is using Mr. Porteous’s statement against him. Rather, Mr. Porteous denies he made the statement and, in any event, abjures any reliance on a property interest in his motion to suppress. See United States v. Samboy, 433 F.3d 154, 162 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding that the defendant had not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment that was searched where his “strategy throughout the proceedings was to distance himself from any possible interest” and noting that the defendant could have argued, but did not, “that he lacked an interest at trial while arguing that he did in fact have a recognized interest . . . in his motion to suppress”). 22 See also Symonevich, 688 F.3d at 21 n.6 (“The burden to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy lies squarely on the movant.”); United States v. Rodríguez-Lozada, 558 F.3d 29, 37 (1st Cir. 2009); Samboy, 433 F.3d at 161 (quoting Minnesota v. Carter, -21- Mr. Porteous established a privacy interest in the car, they cannot object to its search by the officers. Because the defendants do not assert the requisite privacy interest in the vehicle that was searched, they cannot make any claim about the legality of the search of the vehicle. We therefore have no reason to address their contentions with respect to that search. B. Uncounseled Questioning at the Scene of the Vehicle Stop The defendants next submit that the law enforcement officers should have supplied Miranda warnings before questioning them at the scene of the vehicle stop and that any statements made in the absence of such warnings should be suppressed. In evaluating the district court’s ruling on whether the defendants were “in custody” for Miranda purposes, we review the court’s factual assessment of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation for clear error. United States v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428, 435 (1st Cir. 2011). Then, we review de novo whether, “viewed objectively, the discerned circumstances constitute the requisite ‘restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998)); cf. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 95 (1980) (remanding a case that came to the Supreme Court “as a challenge to a pretrial decision suppressing evidence” so that the defendants could “attempt to establish that they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas” searched). -22- formal arrest.’” Id. (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S.