Opinion ID: 403952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the simmons doctrine

Text: 18 Flores next argues that a constitutionally impermissible dilemma was created by permitting the government to introduce into evidence an incriminating letter written by Flores' attorney in an attempt to vindicate Flores' Fourth Amendment rights. 19 Flores' attorney sent an administrative claim letter 2 to the City of San Jose which alleged that the police had violated Flores' rights by illegally searching his apartment and wrongfully seizing his guns. The letter admitted Flores' possession of the guns and demanded $10,000 in damages. The district court denied Flores' motion to exclude the letter from evidence at his trial for being a convicted felon in possession of firearms. 20 In Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394, 88 S.Ct. 967, 976, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), the Supreme Court held that when a defendant testifies in support of a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, his testimony may not thereafter be admitted against him at trial.... The Court found an unconstitutional dilemma because the defendant had been required to surrender his Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination in order to assert his arguably valid Fourth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court has applied a similar rationale to situations in which the government has imposed a Hobson's choice on a person, thereby forcing an election between the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self incrimination and another important right. See, e.g., Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 97 S.Ct. 2132, 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977); Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 88 S.Ct. 1913, 20 L.Ed.2d 1082 (1968). 21 Flores argues that Simmons should be extended to prevent the admission at his criminal trial of the statements he made in a formal 3 effort to recover damages for an alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. 4 We understand, but reject the argument. 22 Here, the government did not create the difficult choice which Flores complains of. The letter sought monetary damages for an allegedly illegal search of Flores' apartment. It was not necessary to have admitted Flores' possession of the guns found in the apartment at that time and in that manner before seeking to vindicate his Fourth Amendment rights. Cf. United States v. Dohm, 597 F.2d 535, 543-44 (5th Cir. 1979) (the court found no compelled self-incrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because the defendant's admission during his bail hearing that he possessed cocaine was not necessary for the assertion of his Eighth Amendment right to bail). Further, the letter was voluntarily mailed by Flores and his attorney at their election. They knowingly created the complained of dilemma. Nothing dictated their choice of timing. The government was not a party to the election. We find no intolerable tension between constitutional rights. See McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 211-12, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1469-1470, 28 L.Ed.2d 711 (1971). Nor can we say that a constitutional right has been burdened impermissibly.... See Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 238, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 2129, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980). See also United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1286-87 (5th Cir. 1979). 23 While different facts might produce a different result, under the circumstances here, it was not error to admit the claim letter into evidence at Flores' trial. 24