U.S. v. Daniels, 60 M.J. 69

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. the Fourth Amendment by its express terms protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures; under the Military Rules of Evidence, which implement the Fourth Amendment, evidence illegally seized by government agents from a protected place is inadmissible
2. where appellant was not aware of police presence, his claim that police formed a moving roadblock while surveilling him on highway did not rise to a Fourth Amendment seizure
3. after accused’s brief detention for traffic stop concluded, encounter between accused and state trooper was consensual in nature and not a seizure subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny, notwithstanding accused’s contention that trooper’s request for consent to search his vehicle initiated a subsequent detention; accused did not show that after issuing a citation, trooper prevented him from leaving, by physically blocking his vehicle, engaging in questioning, or otherwise signaling to accused that he was not free to leave
4. accused’s initial consensual encounter with state trooper during traffic stop evolved into a Fourth Amendment seizure, where shortly after accused gave his consent to trooper for a routine search of his vehicle, and trooper began his search, between 10 to 12 ATF agents arrived on the scene to conduct an intensive search of vehicle, and began questioning him; under the circumstances a reasonable person would not have felt free to decline the agents’ requests and terminate the encounter
5. Fourth Amendment seizure was an investigatory detention rather than an arrest, where there was no evidence that the ATF agents brandished their weapons or handcuffed accused, or that accused was prevented from speaking to his passengers
6. investigatory detention was supported by reasonable suspicion that accused was transporting one or more handguns for unlawful resale where surveillance indicated a pattern of apparent straw purchases of handguns by accused and co-actor during days preceding the stop, and ATF had received a tip from a confidential informant that accused would be traveling to New York, suggesting to agents the possibility of interstate transport and sale of the guns

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Generally

1. the Fourth Amendment by its express terms protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures; under the Military Rules of Evidence, which implement the Fourth Amendment, evidence illegally seized by government agents from a protected place is inadmissible
2. the question of whether a private actor performed as a government agent does not hinge on motivation, but rather on the degree of the government’s participation in the private party’s activities, a question that can only be resolved in light of all the circumstances; to implicate the Fourth Amendment in this respect, there must be clear indices of the government’s encouragement, endorsement, and participation in the challenged search
3. in the instant case, rather than retrieve a vial of suspected cocaine on his own initiative from his roommate’s nightstand and then bring it to his chief petty officer for consultation, the servicemember instead first consulted his chief, and then, only after he received the order from his chief to do so, retrieved the vial; in other words, the chief’s specific order as a government official triggered the servicemember’s actual seizure of the vial; in light of these facts, we hold that the chief clearly encouraged, endorsed, and participated in the servicemember’s seizure of the vial and, accordingly, that the servicemember acted as the chief’s agent when he seized the vial
4. given the servicemember’s role as a government agent, his warrantless search of appellant’s nightstand drawer to seize the vial of cocaine was unlawful

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Consent

1. it is possible that an individual functioning as a government agent might own or exercise adequate control over the property searched that he or she could lawfully consent to the search
2. implicit in the military judge’s ruling that appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his nightstand drawer is that his roommates did not have adequate control of the nightstand to exercise independent authority to consent

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Expectations of privacy

1. the Supreme Court defines a Fourth Amendment search as a government intrusion into an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy; the Court’s twofold expectation of privacy test asks, first, whether the individual by his conduct has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, whether the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, or, in other words, whether the expectation, viewed objectively, is justifiable under the circumstances