Court Tells Cops They Can't Seize Luggage And Send It Hundreds Of Miles Away In Hopes Of Generating Probable Cause

from the Fourth-Amendment-also-deals-with-seizure dept

There's no universal law enforcement "best practices" for searches and seizures, but simply respecting the Fourth Amendment would seem to be a good base guideline. However, that baseline is rarely used. Far too often, searches and seizures seem to be officers seeing what they can get away with -- and expecting the legal system to assist in applying "good faith" to unconstitutional searches after the fact.

Ethan Moore landed at the Dillingham, Alaska airport, where he was met by two police officers. According to the officers, informants claimed Moore was transporting marijuana. They seized his luggage and took it to the local police station while they sought a search warrant. (via FourthAmendment.com)

This effort failed.

After hearing the warrant application, the magistrate concluded that there was no probable cause for the search, so he refused to issue the search warrant. More specifically, the magistrate concluded that the officers had failed to provide sufficient proof of their informants’ credibility to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test.

When the magistrate issued this ruling, he invited the officers to present more information to corroborate their informants.

The Aguilar-Spinelli test basically states informants -- if used to support probable cause claims -- must be shown to be reliable and credible. The three informants relied on here weren't. Rather than follow up with the informants or simply return Moore's luggage, the officers went with option C.

Instead, the officers kept Moore’s luggage overnight and then, the next morning, they shipped it to the Alaska State Troopers in Anchorage. After the luggage arrived in Anchorage, it was subjected to sniffing by a drug-detection dog. The dog alerted to the luggage, and the troopers then applied for a search warrant, this time in front of an Anchorage judge. The warrant was granted.

Armed with this warrant, issued by another judge in another city after being "pre-searched" by a drug dog, the officers opened the suitcase and found seven ounces of marijuana. Moore challenged the search and the court finds the officers' decision to do something no one recommended violated Moore's Fourth Amendment rights.

We therefore hold that the police violated Moore’s rights under the Fourth Amendment when they continued to hold his luggage after the magistrate denied their application for a search warrant. All evidence derived from the later search of that luggage must be suppressed.

The state did try to save the search with some pretty bad arguments. For one, it argued that because officers told Moore they were going to perform some questionable actions in search of a warrant, the warrant and search should be valid. The court disagrees.

[E]ven though the police may have accurately informed Moore that they were going to ship his luggage to Anchorage, and that he would be deprived of his luggage at least until the next day, the fact that the police communicated this information to Moore could not turn an unconstitutional seizure into a lawful one. In other words, the police could not obtain a license to violate Moore’s Fourth Amendment rights merely by informing Moore that they intended to do so.

In addition, the court informs the state that it cannot do whatever it wants with seized items just because it feels it may eventually reach a point where it will have enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

The State is effectively arguing that if the police have probable cause to believe that an article of luggage contains evidence of a crime, the police may seize the luggage, hold it for as long as is reasonably necessary to complete any desired additional investigation or testing, and even ship the luggage hundreds of miles to accomplish this additional investigation or testing — all without seeking a judicial warrant until the additional investigation is done.

We are aware of no legal authority to support this argument.

The seizure of Moore's luggage should have ended when the magistrate denied the warrant. The US Supreme Court has held that people and their belongings cannot be unreasonably detained just so officers can attempt to sniff up some probable cause (in the context of traffic stops and drug dogs). The magistrate -- while noting the severe deficiencies in the hearsay presented as "probable cause" -- gave the officers a few options. Because they chose "none of the above," their drug bust has vanished.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, ethan moore, law enforcement, probable cause, seizures, warrants


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:44am

    They just went about it wrong. If the local police had brought in the DEA or FBI and gone to a federal judge to sign off a search warrant, then it all would have been perfectly legal.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 18 Jun 2016 @ 9:48am

      Re:

      Well, except for the fact that federal courts have ruled that extending a traffic stop to bring in a dog for a sniff is unconstitutional -- so shipping luggage hundreds of miles away for a dog sniff after a local judge found there was insufficient justification for a search warrant would be even less likely to pass.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:47am

    The State is effectively arguing that if the police have probable cause to believe that an article of luggage contains evidence of a crime
    Except the first judge effectively told them there wasn't even probable cause, right? So they basically held onto the luggage completely unlawfully.
    And how bad do you have to be to have THREE informants' claims thrown out?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 16 Jun 2016 @ 4:47am

      Re:

      The argument is that since the second judge granted the warrant, there was probable cause after all, they just didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of applying to the first judge.

      The obvious counterargument to that (although not necessarily the one which the court is using) would seem to be that if they didn't have the basis to demonstrate it at the time of the seizure, they did not have probable cause for that seizure itself.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Bergman (profile), 18 Jun 2016 @ 9:50am

        Re: Re:

        The obvious question to ask though, is whether police told that second judge that he was the second judge, or that another judge had already found there was insufficient evidence for a warrant?

        Did police simply tell the second judge that a dog had alerted on the luggage, and nothing else? If they did that, then of course the second judge would have issued the warrant.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 4:23am

    These are some really fucking stupid cops. Informing a suspect that you intend to violate his rights doesn't make it constitutional. The fourth amendment is in the bill of rights to protect ALL defendants. It's never designed as a loophole for cops to violate.

    I'm all for bringing someone to justice, but telling somebody you intend to violate their rights still does not make it constitutional. When a course of action is unconstitutional, no conduct you engage in can ever make it constitutional.

    Apparently, the cops in this case decided to scam the judge and the courts. If I didn't know better, I'd swear that these cops have Prenda Law working for them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 6:01am

      Re:

      > Informing a suspect that you intend to violate his rights doesn't make it constitutional.

      How many innocent people would challenge it in court?

      For that matter, what recourse would you have, if the violation ALSO did not provide evidence of a crime?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:16am

        Re: Re:

        Not only that but the Supreme Court of United Slaves has declared the borders as a constitution free zone.

        The Constitution does not have borders. The Constitution applies to all US Citizens when dealing with the US Government even if they were on the fucking moon!

        It is "WE the People, FOR the People, BY The People."

        Not When THEY fucking want it, and WHERE they say its okay!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 1:05pm

          The bill of rights applies to everyone.

          I would argue that refusing non-Americans those rights at least when regarded by agents of the US, is as tyrannical as refusing them to US Citizens.

          They are rights due to persons on the basis that they are persons, not on the basis they are Americans.

          Of course, when the Bill of Rights inconveniences agents of our current government, they seek to circumvent them regardless of citizenship.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I agree that the Constitution should apply to everyone within the United States, even in the 'border' areas, citizen or not. The exception for the borders areas is one that Congress could and should correct. Just ask politely...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:39am

      Re: Retroactive Constitutionality

      "When a course of action is unconstitutional, no conduct you engage in can ever make it constitutional."

      Mr. Bush and Mr. Yoo would like to have a word with you.

      In Guantanamo.

      "Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate...THE FUTURE)." - The Central Scrutinizer

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:18pm

      Re:

      Point of clarification. The first ten Articles constitute the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is...an amendment to the original 10. This does not diminish the importance of the Fourth or any other amendment, but amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights. All of them together make up the Constitution.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 11:13pm

        Re: Re:

        What on earth are you talking about? The first 10 amendments that Congress passed are the Bill of Rights. That's basic civics. See here.

        Anyway, there are only 7 articles in the original Constitution, not 10.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        freedomfan (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 11:27pm

        1st 10 amendments == Bill of Rights (in U.S.)

        Point of clarification. The first ten Articles constitute the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment is...an amendment to the original 10. This does not diminish the importance of the Fourth or any other amendment, but amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights. All of them together make up the Constitution.


        It's late here, but that sounds like you are saying that the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not what we call the U.S. Bill of Rights. I am pretty sure that they are.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 14 Jun 2016 @ 4:36am

    Know what pisses me off?

    We only get to see this crap when someone sues to have evidence suppressed. Namely when he is on the line for something bad.

    When the police pull this kind of crap on somebody who has nothing to hide, they will not get called because there is no permanent damage to sue for, particularly not in relation to the cost of litigation.

    That makes me think that generally in cases of private-person-against-state, fee-shifting provisions should apply. Possibly with options for the state to reimburse itself when the case is the result of egregious misconduct.

    That would make it more likely for the victims of illegal searches to sue even when they don't depend on getting evidence suppressed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 1:12pm

      Re: Know what pisses me off?

      It is an intrinsic weakness in our judicial system that in order for fourth amendment protections to be preserved, someone criminal has to get away, which is supposed to serve as a penalty to the state, but it more affects the people (by making us less safe).

      This is less of an issue when illegal pot is suppressed by a search, but what if it's a graveyard of unidentified children?

      That's why it becomes so tempting to dismiss constitutional rights. We don't want serial murderers walking on a technicality right?

      And that's how we got right here, where protections of common citizens are neglected, because protections of heinous criminals are neglected.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 5:01am

    Will Moore get the return of the 7 ounces of Marijuana or will that Marijuana be confiscated or will there will be an excuse from the Police that the 7 ounces of Marijuana in question can no longer be found?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      I.T. Guy, 14 Jun 2016 @ 6:31am

      Re:

      Officer: {cough cough] No sir you were mistaken [cough cough] it was only 6 ounces.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ben (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:26am

        Re: Re:

        Actually, I suggest it started as 10 ounces: is Moore going to complain that it wasn't 7 ounces?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:23pm

        Re: Re:

        Captain O'Hagan:
        Did that bag you pulled off these College kids have that sticker?


        Rabbit:
        Uummm...
        [secretly looks at a bag he hid in his pocket]
        I don't believe it did.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      SteveMB (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:08am

      Re:

      I presume that the police will get their marijuana back to drop in the next suitcase they open illegally.

      (No, I don't think I'm being one bit unfair, given the pattern of willful criminality shown by the police in this case.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 12:34pm

      Re:

      The marijuana will be confiscated as it is still a controlled substance. Moore will not be charged with anything.

      To return it to Moore would only allow the cops to then have a second crack at charging him with possession and anything else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 5:25am

    parallel construction

    I wonder if this was a case of parallel construction going on.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 6:36am

      Re: parallel construction

      That was my thought. Three informants, and they can't go back and get additional testimony from any of them? Did the three informants even exist? Or were the cops representing stingray detected contacts with a drug dealer as "confidential informants".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:22am

        Re: Re: parallel construction

        "Your Honor, we believe the information provided to us by Mr. Harris, Mr. Sting, and Mr. Ray to be completely reliable."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:39pm

      Re: parallel construction

      Evidence laundering, and given the lengths they went through, most likely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris-Mouse (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 5:31am

    I'm surprised the police didn't just ask ICE to do the searching, considering that ICE is allowed to treat most of the country as a constitution free zone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TRX (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 6:04am

    Most PDs claim to be undermanned and overworked, and many freely admit they will ignore small crimes to have manpower available to work larger ones.

    Yet I keep reading about this sort of thing, often complicit with the prosecutors, who also claim to be undermanned and overworked. And do they not only go beyond reasonable allocation of resources, they go beyond the limits of the law in order to pursue a case that is, at best, trivial.

    That, or crime is so low in their jurisdictions they're going to ridiculous lengths to look busy enough to justify their budgets...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:12am

      Re:

      Ah aha... they also lie.

      there are a lot of people in jail over the dumbest fucking shit.

      They ARE targeting easy crimes! The only time they don't is if an when they see a person they think they might like or feel bad fucking over or a pair of underpants they might get into!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 6:07am

    Silly cops, the All Writs Act opens everything!

    Why not just claim the luggage contained an electronic device containing child pornography, then imprison the suspect in solitary confinement until he opens the luggage?

    A Federal judge would probably jizz his pants and issue an All Writs Act order before the cops were done saying "child pornography."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 6:17am

    Future Technology

    We are notifying you that we are going to hold on to your property which we have seized in the expectation that in the future the necessary technology will be developed to allow us to determine that there is more than probable cause to open your property for a more complete search.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    peter, 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:34am

    Hmmmmm

    Why do I get the strong suspision that the police had already opened the luggage and found the drugs before applying for a warrant.

    Also, why did they not have a dog available at the airport as it was for specifically a drugs but that they were there for?

    Finally why did they not apply for a warrant before they went to the airport?

    It is not difficult to conclude they had a source of information they do not want to disclose and when they were sure the drugs existed, the 'informants' was their go-to excuse to get a warrant. When that failed they had to resort to their back-up excuse, the convoluted method of arranging a dog sniff.

    This has all the hallmarks of 'get the drugs and legalize it afterwards'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 7:50am

    Seems like overkill

    And all of that over 7 ounces of marijuana, which is becoming legal in many states?
    Did the cops have nothing better to do? Or did they really think they just caught themselves a major drug kingpin and searching his luggage would break the drug cartel wide open?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 10:22am

      Re: Seems like overkill

      more likely his contempt of their illegal actions made them decide to make a petty power play to put him in his place beneath their boot heel.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 10:19am

    Techdirt needs to stop showing these criminals respect by calling them police officers.

    Why not use the word Criminal to describe their criminal actions, followed by the word "police officer" to clarify.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 11:43am

    PLEASE

    Can we use the 4th amendment to protect our AIRPORT LUGGAGE??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 12:15pm

    Dogs

    Why do they even bother with judges when they have dogs? Since judges virtually *never* refuse to sign search warrants based on the actions of dogs, wouldn't it more efficient to just let the dog directly sign the warrant with a paw print or something?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 2:31pm

    The only thing I'm waiting for is when the American citizenry decide that enough is enough and then you're going to see the people inflicting violence on the very law enforcement agencies that are abusing the civil and constitutional rights of the people.

    This has been getting worse and worse ever since September 11th and I'm telling everyone here that the day is coming soon when the American people decide that they have had enough.

    I'm sure that there are a lot of good police officers out there but it's the bad cops that are going to turn this country into a war zone between the police and the people. It's going to be a whole new civil war, civil unrest, riot or whatever you want to call it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2016 @ 3:44pm

    For 7 ounces... Bigbbust and effort for 7 ounces ... If it was a pound or so then there's something to discuss ... But a few ounces garbage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bill Royjer, 14 Jun 2016 @ 10:58pm

    But does he get his marijuana back or do the State Police get 7 ounces of free smokes?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    freedomfan (profile), 14 Jun 2016 @ 11:45pm

    Police: D'oh! What we did was *almost* legal. What we wanted was to be *barely* legal.

    It always strikes me that law enforcement types think it's perfectly okay to stretch the meaning of what they can legally do. But, when some non-LEO is doing that, they deserve to be treated like the scum of the earth. How can it not negatively effect law enforcement when police spend so much effort coming up with ways to circumvent the law?

    (Admittedly, these LEOs know they will suffer zero consequences for these shenanigans, so this sort of thing should hardly be a surprise.)

    Also, it seems that a huge fraction of these incursions against the 4th amendment are due to drug cases. I don't do drugs and I don't it's generally a great thing to do. But, it drives me crazy that my rights are shredded because law enforcement thinks its the only way to effectively combat "drug crimes". I would legalize all of them just to take away so many excuses for poor law enforcement behavior.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Alareth, 15 Jun 2016 @ 9:50am

    This reminds me of the time when I was a kid and I asked my mom if I could go play at a friends house and she said no, then I went and asked dad and he said yes.

    Although my my case my dad came looking for me about 45 minutes later and lets just say I NEVER tried that again ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      freedomfan (profile), 15 Jun 2016 @ 12:41pm

      Re:

      Hehe. I recall a similar learning experience. I think the obvious conclusion is true: Parents willing to deter misbehavior produce kids who don't misbehave as much.

      The problem in cases like the one in the post is that, effectively, no one plays the role of the strict disciplinarian when law enforcement misbehaves. The higher-ups in the police are lax parents and either ignore misbehavior or hand down ineffective (deterrent) punishments; the courts take the marshmallow parent position that "He didn't know" or "He's a nice boy, but he forgets"; and - sad to say - we, the public, are no better when we refuse to force our politicians to take a "tough on crime and tough on police misbehavior" position.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.