Opinion ID: 2782883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Motel Room Key Cards

Text: After entering Room 231 and handcuffing Defendant, Investigator Garrison asked Defendant for his name. Defendant said, “Joshua Roberts, my ID is in my back pocket.” At a pretrial motion hearing, Investigator Garrison testified that Defendant eventually “stood up and turned his right hip toward Officer Garrison, clearly indicating that Garrison should reach into his hip pocket to retrieve the identification.” Defendant testified at trial that he “told” Investigator Garrison to “get it out” of his back pocket. Investigator Garrison did so, pulling out a wallet and two plastic motel key cards that were sandwiched up against the wallet. Defendant had one key card for Room 109 and another for Room 231. Investigator Garrison asked what the keys were for, and Defendant responded, “[F]or this room.” Investigator Garrison subsequently Mirandized Defendant. Investigator Garrison testified that he eventually gave the room keys back to the motel management, but Defendant testified that Investigator Garrison “just showed them to the other police officer, and he gave them back to [Defendant].” Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence of motel room key cards seized from him on June 24, and to suppress any evidence derived from questioning him on that date, arguing that the questioning of Defendant and search of his person exceeded the scope of Terry v. Ohio, -9- No. 14-5430, United States v. Roberts 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing and recommended that the motion be denied, concluding that no search had occurred because the motel key cards were inadvertently discovered when Investigator Garrison followed Defendant’s invitation to retrieve his identification. Defendant objected to that recommendation, arguing that Investigator Garrison lacked any basis to recognize the key cards as incriminating, so he should have left the key cards where they fell or restored them to Defendant’s pocket. The district court reviewed this issue de novo and denied Defendant’s motion, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the motel room key cards found in his pocket. Def.’s Br. 29. Defendant makes three arguments on appeal. First, Defendant argues that the search of Defendant’s back pocket exceeded the scope of Terry v. Ohio. Def.’s Br. 30. Second, because Defendant was handcuffed behind his back and had officers freely ask him questions, Defendant argues that he was “subjected to coercion that rendered his selfidentification and what followed, including his invitation to a law enforcement officer to go fishing in his pocket, subject to suppression.” Def.’s Br. 30. Third, Defendant argues that the seizure of those key cards was impermissible because they were not “apparently incriminating.” Def.’s Br. 29. “The grant or denial of a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact and law. On appeal, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” United States v. Fisher, 745 F.3d 200, 202 (6th Cir. 2014). A factual finding is clearly erroneous “when, although there may be evidence to support it, the reviewing court, utilizing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ellis, 497 F.3d 606, 611 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “When the district court has denied the motion to suppress, we review all evidence in a -10- No. 14-5430, United States v. Roberts light most favorable to the Government.” United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 892 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Terry v. Ohio “permits a police officer briefly to detain a person or property for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur.” United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 354 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-22. Terry similarly permits a “reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” 392 U.S. at 27. Defendant does not dispute the legality of his detention, but rather asserts that the search leading to the discovery of the key cards exceeded the scope of Terry because it was not reasonably designed to discover harmful contraband. Def.’s Br. 30. But Defendant incorrectly presumes that the search of his back pocket, which led to the discovery of the key cards alongside Defendant’s wallet, was part of a Terry search. Instead, as the district court found, Defendant consented to Investigator Garrison’s reaching into his pocket in order to remove Defendant’s identification. “An officer with consent needs neither a warrant nor probable cause to conduct a constitutional search.” United States v. Jenkins, 92 F.3d 430, 436 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)). “The consent must be freely and voluntarily given, and this must be proven by ‘clear and positive’ proof.” United States v. Kelley, 913 F.2d 261, 265 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. McCaleb, 552 F.2d 717, 721 (6th Cir.1977)). Defendant clearly consented to the search of his pocket. In a preliminary motion hearing, Investigator Garrison testified that after he handcuffed Defendant, he asked Defendant for his name. Defendant gave his name and told Investigator Garrison that his identification was in his back pocket. Defendant then stood up and turned his right hip toward Investigator Garrison, indicating -11- No. 14-5430, United States v. Roberts that Investigator Garrison should reach into Defendant’s hip pocket and retrieve the identification. At trial, Defendant also testified that he “told” Investigator Garrison to get the identification out of his pocket. Accordingly, the search of Defendant’s pocket to retrieve his identification was consensual. See United States v. Canipe, 569 F.3d 597, 604 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that search of vehicle was consensual when defendant “responded positively and unambiguously”); see also United States v. Thurman, 525 F. App’x 401, 404 (6th Cir. 2013) (concluding that search of glove box was consensual when defendant responded to officer’s inquiry to search by reaching into his pocket and handing the officer his keys). Defendant relies on United States v. Beauchamp, 659 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2011), to argue that his detention created a coercive environment and vitiated his consent. In that case, we determined that police coercion negated a defendant’s consent because the defendant consented immediately after an officer placed his hands on the defendant’s body in order to conduct a frisk, and the defendant was repeatedly prevented from exercising his right to walk away from the police. Id. at 572. Beauchamp is inapplicable. Unlike the officer in that case, Investigator Garrison did not place his hands on Defendant’s body immediately before Defendant provided consent.3 Instead, Defendant volunteered his consent before Investigator Garrison even had to ask to search Defendant’s pocket. And while it is true that Defendant was handcuffed at the time he gave consent, the fact a defendant is handcuffed at the time consent is provided does not automatically negate that consent. See United States v. Burns, 298 F.3d 523, 541 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that consent was freely given by handcuffed defendant because of the “calm and cordial nature” of the police interaction). 3 Before Investigator Garrison requested Defendant’s ID, he had conducted a pat-down search of Defendant, removing cigarette lighters and keys from Defendant’s pockets. Time passed, however, between the pat-down and Defendant’s consent. -12- No. 14-5430, United States v. Roberts After Investigator Garrison reached into Defendant’s back pocket and removed a wallet, two key cards came out with it. Defendant argues that the “seizure” of those key cards was illegal because they were not apparently incriminating. Def.’s Br. 30. But Defendant’s argument fails because a seizure never occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property.” Bonds v. Cox, 20 F.3d 697, 701 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Soldal v. Cook Cnty., 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992)). Investigator Garrison did not meaningfully interfere with any possessory interest Defendant had in those key cards. “Given the fact that seizures of property can vary in intrusiveness, some brief detentions of personal effects may be . . . minimally intrusive of Fourth Amendment interests . . . .” United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706 (1983). An interference is not “meaningful” when it is short in duration and non-invasive. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853, 869-70 (6th Cir. 2004) (determining that diversion of package for brief investigation “did not constitute a . . . seizure”); United States v. Lovell, 849 F.2d 910, 916 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that the “momentary delay” caused by the removal of defendant’s bags from a conveyor belt “was insufficient to constitute a meaningful interference with [defendant’s] possessory interest in his bags”). The record indicates that any interference with Defendant’s possessory interest in the key cards was temporary and non-invasive. Investigator Garrison testified that he returned the key cards to motel management, and Defendant testified that Investigator Garrison returned the key cards to him after briefly showing them to another officer. Under either scenario, the interference was not meaningful. Compare United States v. Gant, 112 F.3d 239, 242 (6th Cir. 1997) (finding no meaningful interference with defendant’s possessory interest in a bag when officers moved the bag a short distance for a short time), with Farm Labor Org. Comm. v. Ohio State Highway Patrol, 308 -13- No. 14-5430, United States v. Roberts F.3d 523, 546 (6th Cir. 2002) (concluding that four-day detention of green cards interfered with plaintiffs’ possessory interests in the documents).