Court Opinion

ID: 9496042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:16:47.65439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:20.592444
License: Public Domain

PROST, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s holding that the reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause standard applies in this case. I depart from the majority, however, with respect to its assessment of the credibility of the tip letter and in its ultimate application of the Fourth Amendment balancing test articulated in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987). In my view, as a prison employee who was on clear notice that his vehicle was subject to a search for weapons or contraband, Wiley’s reasonable expectation of privacy was minimal. Therefore, in fight of the government’s paramount interest in controlling the prison environment, I would hold the tip here provided a sufficient basis for an employee’s vehicle search on the specific facts of this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I
I begin with the majority’s analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence contained in section II.B of its opinion. Without addressing the important specific information contained within the four-paragraph tip letter, the majority concludes that “the informant here furnished no explanation as to how he knew about the gun allegedly in Wiley’s car or any basis for believing he had inside information.” See supra, at 1355. Relying on Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), and Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), it states that a purely anonymous tip, entirely lacking in relevant corroboration, cannot provide the basis for reasonable suspicion. By contrasting White, in which the anonymous tipster “accurately predicted the suspect’s movements” with JL, where “the anonymous call ... provided no predictive *1358information,” supra, at 1355 (citation omitted), the majority concludes that “as in Florida v. JL, the tip in this case, standing alone, lacked the necessary indicia of reliability to serve as the basis for the search.” Id. at 1353 (citation omitted).
I disagree. Unlike the case at bar, White and JL both dealt with the degree of credibility that an anonymous tip must have to provide the basis for a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a public “stop-and-frisk” (in JL) or a “Terry stop” (in White) by police officers seeking evidence of criminal activity by a member of the general public. In contrast, this case deals with the level of credibility needed to form a reasonable suspicion of employee misconduct necessary for a employer search on prison grounds of a prison employee’s vehicle where that employee has clear notice that his vehicle was subject to search. As discussed in more detail below, I believe that these significantly different circumstances distinguish the degree of reliability necessary to establish reasonable suspicion in this case.
In my view, the tip at issue was sufficiently rehable to form the basis of the Warden’s reasonable suspicion of employee misconduct. Contrary to the majority’s assertion that “the informant here furnished no explanation as to how he knew about the gun allegedly in Wiley’s car,” see supra, at 1355, I read the four-paragraph tip letter as demonstrating that its author had specific knowledge of various circumstances specific to, and occurring within, the prison. For example, the letter mentions the 1997 investigation of allegations that Wiley had brought a handgun into the prison and then goes on to allege that Wiley has continued to “boast” about his ability to do so. Clearly, the tip is not entirely devoid of corroborative information. While it is not predictive in nature, as was the case in White, the detailed letter shows that the informant obviously had “some familiarity with [Wiley’s] affairs” as well as certain “inside knowledge” both about Wiley and what was going on in the prison. JL, 529 U.S. at 270-71, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (citations omitted). Because the tip letter evinces more than just the “tendency to identify a determinate person,” given the particular context of this case, I believe the majority incorrectly concluded that the tip letter was insufficiently rehable under JL to justify the Warden’s search of a prison employee’s car.1
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the age of the letter containing the tip so substantially reduced its reliability that the “letter gives no reason to believe that Wiley would continue to keep a gun on a long-term basis.” See supra, at 1356. On the contrary, the tip letter contains specific ahegations of a long-term and ongoing pattern of Wiley’s bringing a firearm onto prison property. For exam-*1359pie, after asserting that Wiley was “sheltered by the ‘Buddy Buddy System,’ ” during the 1997 investigation, the letter goes on to state that Wiley “has continued to laugh at all of us and the inmates by being above the law and he not only brings the weapon here but he boasts to others, including inmates, that as a corrections officer he is allowed to bring the weapon to this institution.” The letter further states that “[t]he weapon is always, now, kept in the automobile in the general parking lot.” Thus, unlike the type of single, discrete incident of criminal behavior at issue in White and JL, the tip in this case alleges an ongoing pattern of behavior lasting at least from 1997 to 1999. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the majority’s assertion that the tip letter “gives no reason to believe” that Wiley’s behavior was “long-term” and, therefore, very possibly ongoing. See supra, at 1356. In this regard, it is also relevant that the Warden, upon receiving the Office of Internal Affairs (“OIA”) memo and the attached 11-month-old tip letter,2 instructed Special Investigative Agent Longley to confirm with the OIA that an investigation of Wiley was still necessary and that the tip letter did not relate to the previously-concluded 1997 investigation. The Warden testified that the OIA responded that this was a “current referral” that needed investigation. The Warden acted promptly upon receiving the OIA memo, ordering the search of Wiley’s vehicle on the first day Wiley was at work after the OIA confirmation that further investigation was necessary. Thus, while I think the delay here makes this a close case, taking all these factors into account, I would conclude that the Warden acted reasonably in according the tip letter sufficient credibility despite its age to justify a search of a prison employee’s vehicle.
Further, the majority reasons that the fact that it took over ten months for the OIA to act on the informant’s letter demonstrates that this case does not implicate the “sort of situation contemplated by the dicta in JL, where the Court suggested that the usual showing of sufficient indicia of reliability might be relaxed in certain emergency situations.” See supra, at 1356-1357 (citing JL, 529 U.S. at 273-74, 120 S.Ct. 1375). I agree with the majority that the tip here is not like “a report of a person carrying a bomb” and does not implicate the urgency that underlies the exception referred to by the majority. JL, 529 U.S. at 273, 120 S.Ct. 1375. However, the Court in JL also suggested a second possible context in which the reasonable suspicion test might be relaxed when it clarified that it did not “hold that public safety officials in quarters where the reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment privacy is diminished, such as airports and schools, cannot conduct protective searches on the basis of information insufficient to justify searches elsewhere.” Id. at 274, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (citations omitted). Notably, in support of this second exception, the Court cites New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), a case in which the Court upheld the search of a 14-year-old student’s purse for cigarettes. Thus, in my view, the Supreme Court in JL seemingly left the door open to the application of a lower burden in the prison context because prisons would appear to fall squarely into this second category of environments in which *1360an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is substantially diminished. See, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (holding that the security interests of penal institution sufficiently outweigh the privacy interests of the inmates to permit visual body cavity searches without establishing probable cause). Indeed, the circumstances here appear even more compelling because Wiley, as a prison employee, had a much lower expectation of privacy than a member of the general public. See, e.g., Leverette v. Bell, 247 F.3d 160, 168 (4th Cir.2001) (holding relatively low standard appropriate for search of prison employee because employee’s expectation of privacy was “diminished in light of the prison’s manifest interest” in preventing the introduction of contraband).
II
With respect to the application of the Fourth Amendment balancing test, it is well-established that “[a] determination of the standard of reasonableness applicable to a particular class of searches requires ‘balancing] the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.’ ” Ortega, 480 U.S. at 719, 107 S.Ct. 1492 (citation omitted). Additionally, “we must balance the invasion of the employees’ legitimate expectations of privacy against the government’s need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace.” Id. at 720-21,107 S.Ct. 1492.
In balancing these competing interests, I would find that Wiley, as a prison employee, had an extremely low expectation of privacy in his automobile while it was parked on prison property. Moreover, Wiley’s already low expectation was further diminished by a conspicuous sign at the entrance to the parking lot that read in relevant part:
It is a Federal crime to bring upon the institution grounds any firearm, destructive device, ammunition, other object designed to be used as a weapon ... without the knowledge and consent of the Warden.... All persons entering upon these premises are subject to routine searches of their person, property (including vehicles), and packages.
Wiley v. Dep’t of Justice, 89 M.S.P.R. 542, 553 (2001) (Slavet, concurring).
Accordingly, balancing Wiley’s exceptionally low expectation of privacy against the substantial governmental interest in prison security, and taking into account that the prison environment may fall within such “quarters where the reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment privacy is diminished” under JL, 529 U.S. at 274, 120 S.Ct. 1375 (citations omitted), I would hold that the tip letter provided sufficiently credible information to render the attempted search of Wiley’s vehicle by his employer constitutional.3 Thus, although this is an admittedly close case, I respectfully dissent.

. See JL, 529 U.S. at 272, 120 S.Ct. 1375. I disagree with the majority that White and JL make clear that "corroboration” must come only from extrinsic sources. As the Court stated in White, "[rjeasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent both on the content of the information possessed and its degree of reliability.” Both factors — quantity and quality — are considered in the " 'totality of the circumstances — the whole picture.’ ” 496 U.S. at 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (citation omitted). As further explained in JL, the tip information in White was deemed sufficiently reliable because “[k]nowledge about a person's future movements indicates some familiarity with that person's affairs." 529 U.S. at 271, 120 S.Ct. 1375. At a minimum, the tip letter demonstrated that the tipster knew about the 1997 allegations and their disposition, thus indicating that the tipster had some "familiarity with [Wiley's] affairs.” Id.

. During three of these months Wiley was not working at the prison due to a previous discharge subsequently reduced to a suspension.

. I disagree with the majority that considering the governmental interest in prison security in the context of the balancing test somehow double counts this interest. See supra, at 1357. The reasonable suspicion standard is applicable not because the search occurred in the prison context, but because the search was performed by a public employer seeking evidence of work-related malfeasance. Ortega, 480 U.S. at 725-26, 107 S.Ct. 1492. As Ortega made clear, reasonable suspicion should be "judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances.” Id. (emphasis added).