Court Opinion

ID: 9471196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:26:45.282122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:18.389461
License: Public Domain

BREYER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent because I believe that the panel’s result is unsound as a matter of Fourth Amendment policy and contrary to controlling precedent.
We agree about the facts. Two DEA agents initially became suspicious of Berry-man because he fit their “drug courier profile.” He arrived at Logan Airport from a “source” city, he looked nervous, he walked rapidly from the plane to the luggage area, he scanned the baggage claim area, and he had only a little luggage. On the basis of-these few facts (and whatever insight their experience and intuition may have added) the DEA agents, in the words of the defendant, “approached me, .. . identified themselves as DEA agents, ... explained to me they were drug enforcement people .... [and] asked if they could speak to me.” Berryman agreed.
The agents’ initial questioning revealed that Berryman had been in Florida three days and returned on a one-way ticket for which he had paid cash — facts that brought him more squarely within the “drug courier profile.” Berryman also said that he did not buy round-trip tickets for short business trips because he liked to buy one-way tickets. He added that he had gone to Florida to discuss a land deal in Alaska. And, he agreed to let the officers look through his luggage (a consent which the district judge held was “freely and voluntarily given”).
In looking through the suitcase one agent moved a gift wrapped package, which Ber-ryman said someone had entrusted to him and probably contained a toy. The agent testified:
I was told there was possibly a toy in there. There was nothing solid in there I could feel. A very powdery, chunky substance.
He also described it as having “a soft mushy-type feeling with chunks.” One of the agents said that at this point he subjectively believed that he would not allow Ber-ryman to leave. Berryman then went with the agents to the security area where they x-rayed the package. And, he waited outside the baggage claim office while one of the agents opened the package and found cocaine.
I have been unable to find any controlling precedent that has found a Fourth Amendment violation on facts like these. And, I have found numerous cases that expressly or impliedly hold the contrary. See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) (per curiam); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); United States v. Regan, 687 F.2d 531 (1st Cir.1982); United States v. Jodoin, 672 F.2d 232 (1st Cir.1982); United States v. West, 651 F.2d 71 (1st Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 3528, 77 L.Ed.2d 1382 (1983); United States v. Viegas, 639 F.2d 42 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 970, 101 S.Ct. 2046, 68 L.Ed.2d 348 (1981). But let me be more specific.
1. First, consider the agents’ initial approach and questioning. Part II — B of the panel’s opinion suggests that the agents could not constitutionally approach Berry-man as they did and ask him if he would answer some questions. This suggestion is contrary to the statement of Justice White, and seven other Supreme Court Justices, in Florida v. Royer, supra. In Royer, the Court held that:
law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.
— U.S. at — - —, 103 S.Ct. at 1324; accord Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. at 440 n. *, 100 S.Ct. at 2753 n. *; United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 552, 100 S.Ct. at 1876 (opinion of Stewart, J.); Terry v. Ohio, *661392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Regan, 687 F.2d at 535; United States v. Jodoin, 672 F.2d at 234; United States v. West, 651 F.2d at 72-73.
For the most part, the courts have reasoned that if officers ask for and receive permission to question a person there is no “seizure” within the terms of the Fourth Amendment. In determining whether a person has been seized, this circuit has explicitly followed the rule that Justice Stewart articulated in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877 (plurality opinion):
a person has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.
See United States v. West, 651 F.2d at 72; United States v. Viegas, 639 F.2d at 44. This rule, as applied to this case, means that there was “no seizure” before the agents found the package, and quite possible even thereafter.
But, even if we were to consider an agent’s voluntary questioning a Fourth Amendment “seizure” — as Judge Swygert does here and in his dissents in United States v. Black, 675 F.2d 129, 139 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1520, 75 L.Ed.2d 945 (1983); and United States v. Moya, 704 F.2d 337, 344 (7th Cir.1983) — the Fourth Amendment would still not forbid it. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable seizures. “Reasonableness” is a matter of interest balancing. Here, the police interest in voluntary questioning is great. To hold that the police cannot even ask voluntary questions of those who strike them as knowledgeable or suspicious would severely interfere with their ability to detect or investigate burglaries, murders, drug traffic and other crimes. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 561, 100 S.Ct. at 1880 (Powell, J., concurring) (“The public has a compelling interest in detecting those who would traffic in deadly drugs for personal profit.”); United States v. Berry, 670 F.2d 583, 595 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (“Informing our police that they cannot approach citizens to enlist their voluntary support in ending this [drug] trade may be tantamount to preventing its interdiction at all.”); Wilson & Kelling, Broken Windows, Atlantic, March 1982, at 29 (importance of police-citizen contact for “order-maintenance” and the preservation of communities). At the same time, the privacy interest at issue is minimal. While many of those questioned may feel “pressure” to cooperate, most will not mind helping the police investigate. Those who do mind can always answer the query “May I ask you some questions?” with the word “no.” In other words, to force the police to give up the practice of polite, voluntary questioning would threaten serious harm to the public interest in safety and effective law enforcement; to impose the duty upon an unwilling citizen to answer “no” would burden privacy interests only slightly. Thus, it does not surprise me that so many courts have rejected the per se condemnation of voluntary airport questioning implicitly advanced by Judge Swygert here and in his dissents to United States v. Black, 675 F.2d at 139 (“Police encounters that involve investigative questioning that focuses on the person being stopped are inherently coercive.”) (Swygert, J., dissenting), and United States v. Moya, 704 F.2d at 344 (“Whether an investigatory stop of limited intrusiveness is controlled by the Fourth Amendment therefore depends on the justification for even that limited intrusion.”) (Swygert, J., dissenting). See, e.g., United States v. Moya, supra (no seizure where police agent approaches an individual, identifies himself as an agent, and asks questions which the individual need not answer); United States v. Collis, 699 F.2d 832 (6th Cir.1983) (same); United States v. Tolbert, 692 F.2d 1041 (6th Cir.1982) (same); United States v. Moore, 675 F.2d 802 (6th Cir.1982) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1521, 75 L.Ed.2d 945 (1983); United States v. Berry, 670 F.2d 583 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (same); United States v. Sanford, 658 F.2d 342 (5th Cir.1981) (same), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 991, 102 *662S.Ct. 1618, 71 L.Ed.2d 852 (1982); United States v. Setzer, 654 F.2d 354 (5th Cir.1981) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 457, 74 L.Ed.2d 609 (1982); United States v. Smith, 649 F.2d 305 (5th Cir.1981) (same); United States v. Williams, 647 F.2d 588 (5th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Moeller, 644 F.2d 518 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1097, 102 S.Ct. 669, 70 L.Ed.2d 638 (1981); United States v. Herbst, 641 F.2d 1161 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 851, 102 S.Ct. 292, 70 L.Ed.2d 141 (1981); United States v. Berd, 634 F.2d 979 (5th Cir.1981) (same); United States v. Pulvano, 629 F.2d 1151 (5th Cir.1980) (same); United States v. Fry, 622 F.2d 1218 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (same); United States v. Elmore, 595 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1979) (same), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 910, 100 S.Ct. 2998, 64 L.Ed.2d 861 (1980).
The panel seeks to escape these cases and principles in two ways, neither of which seems satisfactory. First, it may believe that the agents erred in not specifically telling Berryman that he did not have to answer their questions. That is to say, the panel may allow voluntary questioning if, but only if, the police not only ask permission to question an individual but also add the words “you need not answer.” Whatever the merits of this approach, no other court has adopted it. The Supreme Court in Royer upheld the initial questioning without any such warning, and this circuit similarly upheld airport questioning in Jo-doin, Regan, and West, without mentioning a warning. Thus, for us to impose another “Miranda warning” type of requirement on police questioning seems unwise, at least without first hearing argument about its implications.
Second, the majority may believe there is something special about the initial questioning in this case that distinguishes it from the precedent I have cited. If so, I fail to find it. In United States v. Regan, 687 F.2d at 535, for example, this court permitted voluntary questioning under circumstances described as follows:
The district court found that the two agents, dressed in business suits, approached defendant as he was walking towards the exit; that they displayed no weapons; that they did not order him to stop or the like; that he said “sure” when asked if he would speak with them; and that while an agent assumed a position on either side of him; they did not block his path, touch him, or in any way physically restrain his freedom of movement.
In this case, the agents testified that they were dressed in suits; that they approached Berryman just outside of the terminal; that they did not display their weapons; that they did not order Berryman to stop; that Berryman said he “didn’t mind” speaking with them and never asked if he could leave; and that, while the agents stood on either side of Berryman, they did not block his path (contrary to the majority’s suggestion at p. 1245), touch him, or restrain his movement. There may be a difference, but if so it takes the judicial equivalent of Mozart’s musical ear to detect it.
Of course, the panel properly emphasizes the fact that the district court erred in finding that the agents explicitly told Berryman that he need not answer, for there is no testimony to this effect in the record. This error, however, does not warrant the panel’s rejecting the district court’s decision to accept the agents’ testimony about everything else that occurred. Credibility is a matter for the district court. See, e.g., Jackson v. United States, 353 F.2d 862, 865 (D.C.Cir.1965); Marsh v. United States, 29 F.2d 172, 173 (2d Cir.) (L. Hand, J.), appeal dismissed, 277 U.S. 611, 48 S.Ct. 563, 72 L.Ed. 1015 (1928), and cert. denied, 279 U.S. 849, 49 S.Ct. 346, 73 L.Ed. 992 (1929). If the panel believes that its failure to find support for one of the district court’s factual findings fatally infects all its other findings, then a remand is called for, not reversal. See, e.g., United States v. Heimforth, 493 F.2d 970, 972 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 908, 94 S.Ct. 1615, 40 L.Ed.2d 113 (1974); United States v. Sicilia, 457 F.2d 787, 788 (7th Cir.1972) (per curiam), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 865, 94 S.Ct. 123, 38 *663L.Ed.2d 117 (1973); United States v. Greely, 425 F.2d 592 (D.C.Cir.1970).
2. Next, consider whether any events subsequent to the agents’ initial questioning change the result. The panel suggests that even if the initial questioning were proper, the agents were not justified in prolonging their questioning of Berryman or in x-ray-ing his package. However, whether a seizure ever took place prior to the time the agents opened the package is doubtful. One of the agents testified that once he felt the powder, he subjectively believed that he would not let Berryman depart, while the other agent stated that even after the package had been x-rayed, “[a]s far as I was concerned [Berryman] was free to go at that time.” And, in any case, our test of whether there has been a seizure is an objective one: “how the objective facts would appear to a reasonable person.” United States v. Viegas, 639 F.2d at 44; see United States v. West, 651 F.2d at 72.
Regardless, even if Berryman was “seized” in the course of the questioning, a temporary seizure of the type at issue here is lawful if the police have “a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized [was] engaged in criminal activity.” Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. at 440, 100 S.Ct. at 2753; see Florida v. Royer, — U.S. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 1324 (opinion of White, J.) (“articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime”); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1879 (“specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion”); United States v. Regan, 687 F.2d at 536 (“reasonable and articulable suspicion”); United States v. Viegas, 639 F.2d at 44-45. By the time Berryman had answered a very few questions, there was ample ground for reasonable suspicion. The majority states that “Berryman’s answers to the initial questions in the present case did not create suspicion when none existed before.” But, how can this be so? Did not the facts: (1) that Berryman paid for a business-trip ticket in cash; (2) that Berryman used one-way tickets for a short round-trip flight and said he preferred to fly on one-way tickets; and (3) that Berry-man said he flew to Florida to talk about a land deal in Alaska, all reasonably increase the agents’ suspicion? If not, I do not understand how the word “suspicion” is used.
As to whether the agents had reasonable suspicion to x-ray the package, the answer is even clearer. By the time the agents went to x-ray the package they had, in addition to noting the suspicious circumstances cited above, felt lumpy powder in a package that Berryman said someone in Florida had given him and which he said probably contained a toy. I should think that this amounts to “reasonable suspicion” —perhaps even to “probable cause.” See, e.g., United States v. Waltzer, 682 F.2d 370, 372 (2d Cir.1982) (probable cause found in airport investigation); United States v. Corbitt, 675 F.2d 626, 629 (4th Cir.1982) (same).
3. Florida v. Royer, supra, does not help the panel, for this case differs from Royer in every relevant respect. The cause for detention here included Berryman’s having told the agents that he went to Florida to negotiate a deal about Alaskan land and the agents having physically felt a powder-like substance; in Royer, it consisted only of a “nervous young man paying cash for a ticket to New York City under an assumed name and carrying two heavy American Tourister bags.... ” Florida v. Royer, — U.S. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 1329. The detention here consisted of having Berryman answer questions in public, having Berryman follow the agents to an x-ray machine, and then having him wait outside the Delta Airlines baggage office. In Royer, it consisted of bringing Royer to a “police interrogation room” which was “a small room — a large closet — equipped with a desk and two chairs.” Id. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 1327. Finally, in Royer, the Court found that the “officers’ conduct was more intrusive than necessary to effectuate an investigative detention,” in part because the officers did not “return[ ] his ticket and driver’s license, and inform[ ] him that he was free to go if he so desired.... ” Id. Here the agents *664never moved Berryman to an interrogation room, did not keep his ticket and driver’s license, and told him at the end of the proceedings that he was free to go though he might later be arrested. In sum, this case does not contain the elements on which the Royer Court relied in finding a Fourth Amendment violation; it does contain the elements that the Royer Court suggested would show a lack of such a violation; and the panel’s holding seems to me to violate the rules governing “airport seizures” set out in the nearly unanimous Part II of the Royer case.
For these reasons, I dissent.