641 F. App'x 96
2d Cir.2016Background
- Mohammed Aleem was convicted by a jury of alien smuggling under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii) and appealed the conviction.
- The government introduced evidence obtained by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) after an RCMP stop and arrest on the Canadian side of the border.
- A U.S. Border Patrol civilian notified a Canadian counterpart of (1) a motion-sensor alert on the U.S. side, (2) a southbound runner, (3) a stationary “drop-off” vehicle on the Canadian side, and (4) that U.S. units were responding; later he said the runner was in custody and requested the drop-off vehicle registration.
- RCMP stopped and arrested Aleem, searched his vehicle, and turned Aleem and the vehicle evidence over to U.S. Border Patrol.
- Aleem moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the RCMP acted as agents of U.S. law enforcement and thus the Fourth Amendment should apply; the district court denied suppression and convicted Aleem.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the RCMP acted independently (information sharing, not U.S. control) and thus suppression was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence obtained by RCMP must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment because RCMP acted as agents of U.S. law enforcement | U.S. (Appellee): evidence admissible because foreign officers obtained it without U.S. direction | Aleem: RCMP were virtual agents of U.S. Border Patrol due to calls and cooperation, so Fourth Amendment exclusion applies | Court held RCMP were not U.S. agents; interaction was information sharing, not control; no suppression required |
| Whether foreign-obtained evidence should be excluded when U.S. officials controlled or directed the foreign investigation | U.S.: exclusion unnecessary absent U.S. control or extreme conduct | Aleem: cooperation converted RCMP conduct into U.S. action, triggering exclusion | Court held exclusion applies only if U.S. officials controlled/directed the foreign conduct or extreme conduct occurred; no such control here |
| Alternative: if Fourth Amendment applied, whether arrest/search had probable cause | U.S.: alternatively, probable cause supported any arrest/search | Aleem: argued constitutional protections apply and may have been violated | District court found probable cause; Second Circuit did not reach the issue because primary holding foreclosed suppression |
| Standard of review for agency finding | U.S.: defer to district court’s factual findings | Aleem: legal question of agency merits de novo review | Court applied de novo to mixed law/fact question but reviewed district court’s factual findings for clear error and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bershchansky v. United States, 788 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (review standards for suppression rulings)
- Freeman v. United States, 735 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for suppression)
- Getto v. United States, 729 F.3d 221 (2d Cir.) (foreign officers are not U.S. agents absent U.S. control)
- Lee v. United States, 723 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.) (exclusionary rule generally inapplicable to foreign law enforcement conduct)
- Maturo v. United States, 982 F.2d 57 (2d Cir.) (circumstances allowing exclusion for foreign-conduct evidence)
- Valdivia v. United States, 680 F.3d 33 (1st Cir.) (limitations of exclusionary rule deterrence on foreign police)
- Cabrera v. Jakabovitz, 24 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.) (mixed question of law and fact regarding agency)
- In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 553 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.) (extraterritorial Fourth Amendment issues)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment extraterritorial application)