United States v. Akeem Joseph
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19315
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Early morning arrest of Akeem Joseph outside a nightclub after club security reported he tried to pass several $100 bills that appeared counterfeit.
- Officers used a flashlight to reveal a mismatched watermark on one bill; Joseph produced a torn-photo passport and acknowledged tendering the bills.
- Search incident to arrest uncovered 14 additional counterfeit $100 bills in Joseph’s pocket; at the station he waived Miranda rights, provided incriminating texts, and confessed.
- Joseph moved in District Court to suppress the pocket bills, texts, and confession, arguing (1) the stop/search violated Terry and (2) officers lacked probable cause because they had no counterfeiting expertise to know the bills were fake. District Court denied suppression; jury convicted on two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 472.
- On appeal, Joseph raised for the first time a different probable-cause argument: that officers lacked probable cause as to mens rea (intent to defraud) at the time of arrest.
- The Third Circuit held that Joseph waived that mens rea argument because he had not raised that specific argument in the District Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellate suppression argument not raised in district court is waived under Rule 12 | Joseph: raising the broad issue of probable cause below preserves any appellate argument within that issue (including lack of mens rea) | Government: a party must have raised the particular argument in district court to preserve it | Waived: Arguments not raised below are waived under Rule 12 absent good cause |
| What degree of particularity is required to preserve a suppression argument for appeal | Joseph: issue-level preservation suffices (probable cause objection below preserves mens rea challenge) | Government: argument-level preservation required; issue alone insufficient | Exacting particularity required: parties must have raised the same argument below to preserve it on appeal |
| Distinction between "issue" and "argument" for waiver purposes | Joseph implicitly treats issue and argument as interchangeable | Court: issue (or question) is broader and can encompass multiple distinct arguments; arguments are the basic units preserved or waived | Court adopts distinction: issues may include multiple arguments; only specific arguments are preserved if raised below |
| Whether Joseph’s district-court actus reus argument preserved his appellate mens rea argument | Joseph: his probable-cause challenge below (lack of expertise to identify fakes) preserved any probable-cause challenge on appeal | Government: district-court argument attacked actus reus (whether bills were counterfeit), not mens rea (intent to defraud) | Court: not preserved—actuse reus vs mens rea are distinct arguments relying on different legal rules and facts; mens rea claim waived |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rose, 538 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2008) (Rule 12 bars suppression arguments raised first on appeal absent good cause)
- United States v. Lockett, 406 F.3d 207 (3d Cir. 2005) (appellate suppression claims must be substantially the same as those raised below; substance cannot be changed)
- United States v. Tracey, 597 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2010) (distinguishing issues from discrete arguments for waiver analysis)
- United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2012) (an argument is preserved only if it was the specific issue raised below)
- Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 409 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2005) (probable cause must exist for each element of the offense)
- Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 524 F.3d 419 (3d Cir. 2008) (earlier controlling precedent governs when circuit opinions conflict)
- Lebron v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) (questions are broader than arguments; arguments may be fairly embraced within broader questions)