Court Opinion

ID: 9470299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:01:54.008124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:49.703858
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the DEA agents did not have probable cause to believe that James Swayne had committed or was committing a crime at the time of his arrest, and thus, his conviction shpuld be reversed.
.As an initial matter, I disagree with the majority’s analysis in rejecting Swayne’s effort to suppress the cocaine seized from the luggage he was carrying at the time of his arrest. The stop of Swayne at the airport was a full, formal arrest. See Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). After that arrest, the DEA agents seized the luggage, and subsequently conducted a search pursuant to a warrant they obtained later. The agents discovered the cocaine during that search. To contend in these circumstances — as does the majority — that Swayne’s arrest did not further the discovery of the cocaine is to discard reality in favor of theory and conjecture.
Accordingly, in my view, both the cocaine and the inculpatory statement obtained from Swayne were properly admissible only if the defendant’s warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause that he had committed or was committing a narcotics violation. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225-26, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964).
After reviewing the totality of circumstances, I am convinced that the district court clearly erred in finding that the DEA agents possessed probable cause to arrest Swayne at the time they executed that act.
The DEA agents based Swayne’s arrest on three principal factors: (1) his association with Ted Lampus through their travel arrangements, (2) his physical possession of certain luggage while attempting to leave the airport, and (3) the conformance of his conduct to the so-called “drug courier profile.” These factors cannot sustain a finding that the DEA agents had probable cause to arrest Swayne.
On January 31, 1982, informant Richard Perez negotiated a cocaine purchase with Ted Lampus. Perez then informed the DEA agents that Lampus had said he would be accompanied on a flight from Miami to St. Louis by a man named “Jimmy Swayne” and that Lampus had requested two reservations for a return flight to Miami the same evening or early the next day. The agents confirmed that Swayne and Lampus were booked on a flight from Miami and in fact had boarded the airplane together.
*473These facts surely were not sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that, at the time of the arrest, Swayne had committed or was committing a crime. As Perez’s testimony in the suppression hearing plainly shows, Lampus did not indicate to Perez that Swayne was involved in the transaction in any manner — in either the negotiations, the actual agreement to sell, or the transportation of the cocaine. Swayne, unlike Lampus, was not known to have engaged in narcotics violations. Indeed, the DEA agents were not familiar with Swayne’s appearance, nor did they know anything else about him except his name.
When the DEA agents arrested Swayne, whom they had not yet identified, they knew nothing more than he appeared to be accompanying Ted Lampus. Mere association with a known or suspected criminal does not create probable cause to arrest. E.g., United States v. Capers, 685 F.2d 249,. 251 (8th Cir.1982); United States v. Barber, 557 F.2d 628, 631 (8th Cir.1977). The cases cited by the majority do not suggest otherwise.
The majority recognizes that Swayne’s association with Lampus, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain the district court’s finding. Accordingly, it points to the fact that Swayne took physical possession of two pieces of luggage from Lampus. It also says that when Swayne took this luggage, the informant signaled to the agents that “ ‘[tjhese are the parties and cocaine is present somewhere in their luggage.’ ” As the government conceded in its brief, however, Perez’s signal indicated only that the cocaine was located in “the luggage,” not “their luggage.” There is no record evidence that Perez knew to whom the various pieces of luggage belonged. Indeed, as the government conceded at oral argument, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record indicating who owned the luggage in which the cocaine was discovered. Therefore, when the DEA agents arrested Swayne, they knew nothing more than that an unidentified man was carrying two pieces of luggage handed to him by Ted Lampus.
The majority’s reliance on United States v. Wilkerson, 478 F.2d 813 (8th Cir.1973), to attach significance to Swayne’s physical possession of the luggage is misplaced. In Wilkerson, only one person was involved. Id. at 814-815. In that situation, common sense dictated that the luggage most likely belonged to the person carrying it. Here, however, there were five pieces of luggage, none of which was marked with identification, and two persons. Since the agents had no evidence connecting Swayne to the actual drug transaction, they had no reason to believe that any of the luggage — somewhere in which cocaine supposedly was located — belonged to the defendant even though he was carrying two pieces. Accordingly, Swayne’s physical possession of two pieces of unidentified luggage added nothing to his association with Lampus, and could not create probable cause to arrest.
Finally, as a catch-all, the majority finds that probable cause existed because Swayne’s actions here corresponded to those commonly exhibited by so-called “drug couriers.” Specifically, the majority notes that Swayne was traveling to and from Miami, and his plans called for a rapid turnaround time.
I recognize that the fact that a person is engaging in conduct typical of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics may be considered when determining whether probable cause to arrest existed. See United States v. Smith, 574 F.2d 882, 884 (6th Cir.1978). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has made clear that probable cause is not established merely because a person’s actions conform to a “drug courier profile.” In Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440-441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 2753-54, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980), the Court refused to find that probable cause existed when it was based principally on such “drug courier”-type conduct. It stated that the circumstances present “describe[d] a very large category of presumably innocent travelers, who would be subject to virtually random seizure were the Court to conclude that as little foundation as there was in this case could justify a seizure.” Id. at 441, 100 S.Ct. at 2754.
*474I am likewise persuaded here that the DEA agents possessed insufficient knowledge to have probable cause to make a warrantless arrest of Swayne. To find that probable cause existed in the circumstances here would expose innocent persons to the specter of warrantless arrest and render meaningless the principle that probable cause cannot be based on mere association with a known or suspected criminal.
Thus, the DEA agents acted unconstitutionally in arresting the defendant without probable cause. The question remains whether the connection between this illegal conduct and the evidence obtained from Swayne nonetheless was sufficiently attenuated to permit their use at trial. Dunaway v. New York, supra, 442 U.S. at 216, 99 S.Ct. at 2258; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The record shows that the DEA agents obtained the cocaine and inculpatory statement from Swayne as a direct result of their unconstitutional arrest. Accordingly, I would reverse his conviction.