Opinion ID: 336334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Canadian Search and Seizure.

Text: 51 In late November, 1972, the New York office of the FBI notified the Frauds Section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Toronto that Louis Marder, an American citizen living in Toronto, had information about stolen securities that would soon be brought into Canada for sale and distribution. 27 Marder, on his own initiative, had previously called the New York office of the FBI and stated that he desired to provide this information to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The FBI referred Marder to the Toronto Frauds Section. Other than the single telephone call to the Frauds Section alerting them to Marder's possession of information, American law enforcement officials played no further part in the subsequent Canadian search and seizure. After one unsuccessful attempt by the Frauds Section to contact Marder, he telephoned the Frauds Section and advised Sergeant Paradis that appellants Martin and Edwards and defendant Meierdiericks would be arriving shortly in Canada to sell counterfeit securities. Acting on the information provided by Marder, the Frauds Section placed a Toronto hotel, where the illicit transaction was to take place, under surveillance. After a short period of surveillance, during which time Martin, Edwards, and Meierdiericks were observed, the Frauds Section conducted a warrantless raid on adjacent rooms in the hotel on November 30, and arrested Martin, Edwards, Palmer, Meierdiericks, and Harte. The raid and accompanying search uncovered a large quantity of counterfeited securities and related items of evidence. Almost all the items seized by the Frauds Section were turned over to the FBI and subsequently introduced by the Government in the trial below. Appellant Edwards challenges the district court's refusal to grant his motion to suppress this evidence. 52 As a starting point, the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to arrests and searches made by foreign authorities on their home territory and in the enforcement of foreign law, even if the persons arrested and from whom the evidence is seized are American citizens. Birdsell v. United States, 346 F.2d 775, 782 (5 Cir. 1965); cf. Kilday v. United States, 481 F.2d 655 (5 Cir. 1973). The reasoning usually tendered in support of this limitation is the doubtful deterrent effect on foreign police practices that will follow from a punitive exclusion of the evidence in question by an American court. See, e. g., Brulay v. United States, 383 F.2d 345, 348 (9 Cir. 1967). But as the court below correctly recognized, two exceptions to the general rule obtain. First, if the circumstances of the foreign search and seizure are so extreme that they shock the judicial conscience, a federal appellate court in the exercise of its supervisory powers can require exclusion of the evidence so seized. Birdsell v. United States, supra at 782 n.10; cf. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1694, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485, 48 S.Ct. 564, 575, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Second, if American law enforcement officials participated in the foreign search, or if the foreign authorities actually conducting the search were acting as agents for their American counterparts, the exclusionary rule can be invoked. Birdsell v. United States, supra at 782; Stonehill v. United States, 405 F.2d 738, 743 (9 Cir. 1968); Brulay v. United States, supra at 348; cf. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5-8, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957); Best v. United States,184 F.2d 131, 138 (1 Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 939, 71 S.Ct. 480, 95 L.Ed. 677 (1951). 53 Appellant Edwards concedes that the facts surrounding the search of the Toronto hotel room by Canadian officers are not so extreme that the judicial conscience is shaken by admission of the evidence in question, and we consequently have no need to elaborate on the first exception to the general rule. The remaining issue, however, and that to which we now turn, is whether the extent of participation by American officials in the Canadian search necessitates use of the exclusionary rule. 54 The few courts that have considered the question of how much American participation in a foreign search and seizure is required to mandate application of the exclusionary rule have not been unanimous in their choice of the precise test to be applied though they have as a statistical matter been virtually unanimous in rejecting claims of undue participation. For example, in Birdsell v. United States, supra, we held that the fourth amendment was inapplicable to an action by a foreign sovereign in its own territory in enforcing its own laws, even though American officials were present and cooperated in some degree. 346 F.2d at 782 (emphasis added). 28 In a more elaborate opinion by the Ninth Circuit in Stonehill v. United States, supra, the test of undue participation was stated in the following terms: 55 Thus, the Fourth Amendment could apply to raids by foreign officials only if Federal agents so substantially participated in the raids so as to convert them into joint ventures between the United States and the foreign officials. 56 405 F.2d at 743 (emphasis added). 29 And in still another attempt to clarify the problem of foreign searches, the United States Court of Military Appeals recently held that it is incumbent upon the Government to demonstrate that a challenged search is legal under the law of the country where it takes place. See United States v. Jordan, ___ USCMA ___, 19 Cr.L.Rptr. 2025 (April 14, 1976). 30 57 Though we explicitly reject the test applied by the Court of Military Appeals in Jordan, we have no occasion to choose between the joint venture test of Stonehill or the apparently more relaxed test of Birdsell. Under either test, the minimal participation of American law enforcement officials in the Toronto search and seizure is insufficient to invoke for the benefit of appellant Edwards the protections of the fourth amendment. Looking to the facts, as we must, we perceive no possible way in which the goal of deterring unlawful conduct by American law enforcement officials can be served by excluding the evidence in question for the simple reason that there was no unlawful or unreasonable conduct on the part of the FBI in the handling of the Marder telephone inquiry. Normal lines of communication between the law enforcement agencies of different countries are beneficial without question and are to be encouraged. Criminal conspiracies, as this case amply demonstrates, are sometimes international in scope, and the routine transmittal of the name and telephone number of a possibly valuable informant across national borders clearly is permissible under the fourth amendment. We hold that the district court properly refused to exclude the evidence seized by the Canadian authorities in this case. 58 V. Introduction of the Previous Convictions of Appellants McConnell and Dondich Based on Nolo Contendere Pleas. 59 The district court, over repeated objections, permitted the Government to introduce into evidence Judgments of Conviction for appellants McConnell and Dondich based on an indictment charging conspiracy to defraud and mail fraud handed down by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Ohio. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341. The prior convictions, which arose from illegal transactions unrelated to those charged in the instant case, were based upon pleas of nolo contendere entered by appellants McConnell and Dondich. At the trial below, the Government sought to introduce the prior convictions as proof of a prior similar act relevant on the issue of intent. To support introduction the Government made a proffer of evidence showing the conduct of appellants underlying the prior convictions; appellants at that time indicated that they were ready to demonstrate that the conduct underlying the convictions was not sufficiently similar to that charged in the instant indictment and that the prior convictions were too remote in time to permit introduction. The district court rejected all proffers of evidence bearing on the conduct underlying the convictions and ruled that the admissibility of a prior conviction would be determined solely from the face of the Judgment of Conviction. The district court further ruled that no showing to the jury of conduct underlying any prior conviction admitted into evidence would be permitted. 31 See First Supp. Record on Appeal, Vol. 33, at 149-67. With these restrictions and with appropriate limiting instructions, 32 the district court admitted into evidence the Judgments of Conviction entered by the Ohio federal district court. See Government's Exhibits, Nos. 151 & 152. 60 Both below and on appeal appellants McConnell and Dondich have strenuously objected to the jury's consideration of prior convictions based on pleas of nolo contendere. 33 The district court reasoned, however, that introduction of the two Judgments of Conviction would not be tantamount to introduction of the contemporaneous pleas of nolo contendere. See First Supp. Record on Appeal, Vol. 33, at 166. The Judgments of Conviction provided to the jury disclose none of the facts or circumstances underlying the charges against appellants McConnell and Dondich in the Northern District of Ohio. On the contrary, other than setting out the terms of appellants' probation, the Judgments of Conviction both simply state that it is adjudged that the defendant upon his plea of nolo contendere, and a finding of guilty by the Court, has been convicted of conspiracy to defraud and postal fraud. See Government's Exhibits, Nos. 151 & 152. For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to agree with appellants. 61 Rule 11(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., expressly permits a defendant, with the consent of the district court, to enter a plea of nolo contendere. The plea is literally a statement by the defendant that he is unwilling to contest the charges in the indictment and operates as an admission of every essential element of the offense (that is) well pleaded in the charge. Lott v. United States, 367 U.S. 421, 81 S.Ct. 1563, 6 L.Ed.2d 940 (1961). While the rule in other circuits, see, e. g., Pfotzer v. Aqua Systems, Inc., 162 F.2d 779 (2 Cir. 1947) (Hand, L., J.), and in other contexts, see, e. g., Maryland State Bar Association v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 318 A.2d 811 (1974) (disbarment proceeding), may be different, the rule in the Fifth Circuit generally forbids the use of a plea of nolo contendere for the purposes of impeachment or to show knowledge or intent in a proceeding different from that where the plea was offered. 34 62 In Mickler v. Fahs, 243 F.2d 515 (5 Cir. 1957), plaintiffs, husband and wife, commenced a tax refund suit to recover deficiencies, fraud penalties, and interest paid under an assessment for the years 1938 through 1947. Plaintiff Mickler, the husband, took the stand as a witness in his own behalf and, on cross-examination by Government counsel, was asked: 63 Mr. Mickler, I am going to ask you if you are the same C. M. Mickler who was indicted on September 28, 1949, for income tax evasion for the years 1943, 1944 and 1945, and who entered a plea of nolo contendere to that charge and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00 for each of those years? 64 243 F.2d at 516. Plaintiffs' attorney objected to the question, which objection was sustained. The district court refused to grant a mistrial, but did carefully instruct the jury to disregard the question asked by Government counsel for all purposes. On appeal, this court held that the questioning of plaintiff about his prior plea of nolo contendere was prejudical error left uncorrected by the admonishment to disregard and required reversal of the lower court's judgment. 65 The Government does not make any contention that the question was proper. We have no doubt but that it was improper. A plea of nolo contendere is a mere statement of unwillingness to contest and no more. It is not receivable in another proceeding as evidence of guilt. . . . The same reasons which make the evidence of a plea of nolo contendere inadmissible as an admission will exclude it in a jury trial when offered for the purposes of impeachment. If the proof of the commission of a crime may be admitted such proof is not met by the offer of proof of a nolo plea. Such plea is, as we have seen, an admission of guilt only in the case where it is made. 66 243 F.2d at 517. 67 Piassick v. United States, 253 F.2d 658 (5 Cir. 1958), decided approximately one year after Mickler v. Fahs, apparently expanded the prohibition on the subsequent use of a nolo contendere plea to the situation where the Government, in a later criminal prosecution, uses a prior conviction based on a nolo contendere plea. Appellant in Piassick was a wholesale grocer convicted of making a false statement in a required report to the Government on sales of raw materials suitable for distillation. Appellant took the stand in his own behalf and, on cross-examination, was asked: In 1952, did you plead enter a plea to failure to submit sugar reports in this same court? At this point, appellant's attorney moved for a mistrial, but the trial judge overruled the motion. Counsel for the Government then asked: You are the same M. L. Piassick who was convicted in on or about April 4, 1952, on three counts of failure to submit and render sugar returns or sugar reports, aren't you, Mr. Piassick? Appellant responded in the affirmative. The district court charged the jury, as the district court did in the instant case, that the evidence of the prior conviction was to be considered only on the question of intent. The prior conviction to which Government counsel in Piassick referred was based on a plea of nolo contendere, which fact, it is important to note, is not disclosed by the language of either of the Government's two questions. 35 68 On appeal we held that the admission of this evidence necessitated a reversal of appellant's conviction. The section of the Piassick opinion discussing Mickler v. Fahs warrants repetition: 69 In the Mickler case, as the Government points out, the offer in evidence of the nolo plea was made in a civil case arising out of the same set of facts as those involved in the case where evidence of the plea was offered. In such situation, the Government concedes, the plea of nolo contendere cannot be used. We do not see how this difference between Mickler and this case calls for a different rule. Nolo contendere means, I do not contest it. It is, to be sure, a tacit confession of guilt, but solely for the purpose of the case in which it is entered. If it cannot be used in another case based on the same facts it would seem to follow, a fortiori, that it could not be used for collateral purposes in a case founded upon unrelated fact. . . . The admission of this evidence requires a reversal. 70 253 F.2d at 661 (emphasis added). 71 In the portion of Piassick quoted above, the court speaks as if the plea of nolo contendere itself, rather than a conviction based upon the plea, was introduced before the jury that passed judgment on Piassick. The facts as recited by the court, however, do not bear this out. In the instant case, the Government argues that we are bound by a recognized distinction in this circuit between the plea of nolo contendere and the conviction based upon the plea. Under the Government's argument, it is only where undue emphasis is placed on the plea of nolo contendere in the presence of the jury that a reversal on appeal is required. The Government's argument suffers from two distinct problems. First, the cases decided in this circuit after Piassick fail to confirm or deny authoritatively the existence of a significant distinction between the plea of nolo contendere and the conviction based thereon. For example, in Smith v. United States, 287 F.2d 299 (5 Cir. 1961), heavily relied on by the Government in its brief, defendant in a suit by the United States under the False Claims Act to recover overcharges and penalties argued on appeal that he was improperly impeached with a conviction based on a nolo contendere plea and growing out of the same facts. In rejecting this argument, the court offered the following: 72 Next, while a plea of nolo contendere, as such, may not be received or used as an admission of civil or criminal liability, . . ., no objection was made to the evidence, so the conviction based on it was a relevant circumstance on the credibility of (defendant) as a witness. 73 287 F.2d at 302 (citations omitted). 74 Insofar as defendant in Smith failed to object to the evidence of the plea, the court's language suggesting a distinction between the plea and the conviction is not authoritative. Moreover, the proper interpretation of the above quoted language from Smith, contrary to the Government's reading of the same language, is that if defendant had properly objected to the evidence of the nolo contendere plea, the conviction itself would have been inadmissible for impeachment purposes. The defendant in Smith having allowed the evidence of the plea to come in without objection, the additional harm flowing from introduction of the conviction itself was certainly de minimus. Smith does not, consequently, resolve the issue of a possible distinction between the plea and the conviction. 75 The Government points also to our decision in United States v. Driscoll, 454 F.2d 792 (5 Cir. 1972), where defendant argued that it would have been improper for the Government to impeach him on the basis of his prior state conviction for a misdemeanor that had been expunged upon successful completion of probation. 36 In rejecting defendant's argument, we made the following comparison: 76 However, the rationale of (Mickler ) is quite different from that which Driscoll argues here. The decision in Mickler was based on the court's conclusion that  . . . a plea of nolo contendere is a mere statement of unwillingness to contest and no more. 243 F.2d at 517. Obviously, an actual conviction is quite a different matter, whether or not that conviction is ultimately expunged by the state. 77 454 F.2d at 799. 78 The Government contends that this language substantiates its argument that there is a recognized distinction between the plea of nolo contendere and the conviction based thereon. The flaw in the Government's argument is that Driscoll's state court conviction was not founded upon a plea of nolo contendere; it was, thus, an actual conviction available for the purposes of impeachment. The implication of this observation is, of course, that a conviction based upon a plea of nolo contendere is not available for the purposes of impeachment. 37 79 We have no occasion at this time, however, to rule directly on the merit of the Government's argued distinction between the nolo contendere plea and the resulting conviction; rather, the above discussion of the case law is limited in purpose to a refutation of the Government's position that the argued-for distinction is well-settled in this circuit's jurisprudence. As indicated above, the Government's argument suffers two defects, and it is by reason of the second defect that we are constrained to reverse the convictions of appellants McConnell and Dondich: the Judgments of Conviction provided to the jury in the instant case disclosed on their faces that both appellants had pleaded nolo contendere to the conspiracy to defraud and postal fraud charges brought in the Northern District of Ohio. This fact is not buried in a welter of other information stated in the Judgment of Conviction; the form, on the contrary, is simple in design and the nolo contendere plea is revealed in a clause typed onto the largely printed form. It is beyond peradventure that a mere cursory reading of the Judgments of Conviction by the members of the jury would have revealed the pleas of nolo contendere entered by McConnell and Dondich. The instant case, thus, is not one where we must consider the propriety of the Government using only a conviction that is based on a nolo contendere plea. In our view, the facts of the instant case fall squarely within the Mickler v. Fash-Piassick clear prohibition on the use of a plea of nolo contendere to show knowledge and intent in a subsequent criminal prosecution. 80 The evidence against appellants McConnell and Dondich, albeit sufficient under the standard of Glasser v. United States, supra, nevertheless was not overwhelming, and the improper introduction of the nolo contendere pleas by the Government undoubtedly had a substantial effect on the deliberations of the jury. We are unable to say that the admission of the prior pleas of nolo contendere to similar charges in the recent past was harmless error. 38 See United States v. Harbolt, 491 F.2d 78, 80 (5 Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the convictions of appellants McConnell and Dondich are reversed. 81