26 F.4th 627
4th Cir.2022Background:
- Officers responded to a reported domestic assault in which a firearm was discharged; later that night they approached Anthony Buster who matched the suspect description.
- Buster ran, tripped, and was tackled; he wore a single-strap crossbody bag that ended up in front of him when he fell.
- Officers pulled Buster’s arm away from the bag, handcuffed him, cut the strap to relieve choking, removed the bag, felt it was “hard to the touch,” opened it, and found a gun and ammunition.
- Officers questioned Buster before giving Miranda warnings; he said he had “that gun and my knife.” The district court suppressed post‑Miranda statements as a two‑step Seibert violation and declined to suppress the firearm, relying on a Terry protective‑search theory.
- Buster entered a conditional guilty plea preserving suppression issues under Rule 11(a)(2); the Fourth Circuit considered whether Bundy barred review and then addressed the Fourth Amendment search issue.
- The panel majority held the Terry protective‑search doctrine did not justify searching the bag after Buster was subdued and restrained, reversed the denial of suppression as to the firearm, vacated the conviction, and remanded to allow withdrawal of the plea.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of conditional guilty plea / Bundy rule | Buster: his written conditional plea properly preserved suppression and Miranda issues for appeal. | Government: plea invalid under Bundy because it preserved a non‑case‑dispositive Miranda issue, so appeal should be barred. | Court: Bundy did not bar review here; issues were case‑dispositive and/or inextricably intertwined, so appeal permitted. |
| Fourth Amendment — protective search (Terry) of bag | Buster: opening and searching the bag after he was handcuffed and had no access was not justified by officer‑safety. | Government: officer’s tactile observation (“hard to the touch”) and prior report of a firearm provided reasonable suspicion to search the bag. | Court: Terry’s protective frisk cannot justify methodical search of a bag once suspect is restrained and lacks access; search unreasonable; firearm suppressed. |
| Fifth Amendment — Miranda / public‑safety and two‑step Seibert claim | Buster: post‑Miranda statements were product of an impermissible two‑step interrogation and were properly suppressed by district court. | Government: relied on public‑safety exception for on‑scene statement and did not pursue many pre‑Miranda statements on appeal. | Court: district court’s suppression of post‑Miranda statements was affirmed below; appellate panel did not decide whether pre‑Miranda on‑scene statement remains admissible if the gun is suppressed and left that for the district court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes limited protective frisk during investigative stop to discover weapons)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (protective search limited to what is necessary to discover weapons)
- New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (public‑safety exception to Miranda)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (two‑step interrogation can render post‑Miranda statements inadmissible)
- United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 2004) (panel rule on what pretrial issues may be preserved by conditional plea)
- United States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2001) (protective‑search rationale cannot be stretched into full‑scale search after suspect secured)
- United States v. Davis, 997 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2021) (limits on search‑incident‑to‑arrest where item not within reaching distance)