[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: USA v. ALVEREZ-TEJEDA (Fourth Amendment circumscribed by condoning warrantless search) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. ALVEREZ-TEJEDA, No. 06-30289, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Raymond C. Fisher and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges. KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge: We consider the Fourth Amendment’s limits on the use of trickery and force in conducting seizures. Facts Ascension Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend drove up to a traffic light. As the light turned green, the car in front of them lurched forward, then stalled. Alverez-Tejeda managed to stop in time, but the truck behind him tapped his bumper. As Alverez-Tejeda got out to inspect the damage, two officers pulled up in a police cruiser and arrested the truck driver for drunk driving. The officers got Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend to drive to a nearby parking lot, leave the keys in the car and get into the cruiser for processing. Just then, out of nowhere, someone snuck into their car and drove off with it. As the couple stood by in shock, the police jumped into their cruiser and chased after the car thief with sirens blaring. The police then returned to the parking lot, told the couple that the thief had gotten away and dropped them off at a local hotel. The whole incident was staged. DEA agents learned that one of the leaders of a drug conspiracy was dealing drugs out of his car and deduced from several intercepted calls and direct surveillance that Alverez-Tejeda, one of the conspiracy’s subordinates, was using the leader’s car to transport illicit drugs. The agents decided to stage an accident/theft/chase in order to seize the drugs without tipping off the conspirators. Every character in the incident, other than Alverez-Tejeda and his girlfriend, was either a DEA agent or a cooperating police officer. . . . FISHER, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur but also write separately to acknowledge the district court’s concerns about the unorthodox manner in which the seizure here was carried out. The staged collision, “theft” of the car (and all of its contents), car chase and search of Alverez-Tejeda’s apparently innocent companion had the potential to spin out of control and exceed reasonable bounds. Nonetheless, on the record before us I agree with my colleagues that the agents’ ruse stayed within bounds (even if they pushed the envelope in some respects). Although we do not sustain the district court’s thoughtful analysis, I do not thereby mean to endorse this police action as a model for future creative seizures. For the same reasons, we decline Alverez-Tejeda’s request that we order the district court to dismiss his indictment on the ground that the government’s conduct was “so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.” See United States v. BarreraMoreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). We thus have no occasion to consider whether exclusion of the evidence would have been an appropriate remedy. See Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 2170 (2006) (unconstitutional manner of search or seizure “does not necessarily trigger the exclusionary rule”). . . .
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
Meanwhile the cia is shipping containerized vessels full of the stuff into the country and customs agents are told to ignore it. What a country we've become.
The staged collision, “theft” of the car (and all of its contents), car chase and search of Alverez-Tejeda’s apparently innocent companion had the potential to spin out of control and exceed reasonable bounds. Nonetheless, on the record before us I agree with my colleagues that the agents’ ruse stayed within bounds (even if they pushed the envelope in some respects). Maybe Clinton was right ... it all depends on what the definition of "is" ... "is" Maybe when these types begin swinging from lamp posts their judicial skills will improve.
RON PAUL or REVOLUTION [we don't report and you certainly don't decide]
Good grief. Stealing someone's car without a warrant now makes admissible evidence? We need more rope!
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||