United States v. Arnott
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12538
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Law enforcement had a court-authorized wiretap on James Brichetto and conducted weeks of surveillance of his drug transactions.
- Intercepted call arranged a meeting at a Walmart parking lot; officers observed Brichetto meet a Saturn sedan whose passenger (Leavitt) briefly entered Brichetto's truck.
- Officer Guay followed the Saturn, suspected a drug deal, and when he saw it run a stop sign requested Officer Dalton to stop it; Dalton initiated a traffic stop.
- During the stop Dalton ordered IDs, observed the defendant extremely nervous, conducted a pat-down, felt a hard object, and the defendant unzipped the pocket; Dalton removed a bag of blue oxycodone pills.
- Defendant was handcuffed, questioned without Miranda warnings, then indicted; he moved to suppress the pills and his roadside statements, which the district court denied; he entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the traffic stop | Police had reasonable suspicion (based on wiretap, patterns, and observations) | Stop was pretextual and unsupported by reasonable suspicion | Stop was reasonable under Terry; surveillance and intercepted calls furnished suspicion (also stop-sign violation sufficient) |
| Validity of the pat-down/search | Officer Dalton reasonably suspected danger given nervousness and drug context | Frisk was pretext to search for evidence; no basis to suspect weapon | Pat-down lawful; officer could seize object felt as a possible weapon and discovered contraband under Michigan v. Long rule |
| Admissibility of roadside statements | Questions were incident to valid stop/search and non-custodial | Statements should be suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation | Statements admissible: Terry stops don't require Miranda; interrogation was non-custodial under the circumstances |
| Whether suppression required under tactile manipulation doctrine | N/A | Reliance on Dickerson to suppress tactilely discovered contraband | Dickerson inapplicable; officer removed an object reasonably believed to be a weapon, not an impermissible exploratory manipulation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chhien, 266 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard of review and reasonable-suspicion framework)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may briefly stop and frisk on reasonable suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (legal conclusions on reasonable suspicion/probable cause reviewed de novo)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (contraband discovered during a lawful weapons frisk need not be suppressed)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (suppression where officer manipulated pocket contents knowing no weapon was present)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- United States v. Ruidíaz, 529 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2008) (traffic stop as seizure; reasonable suspicion analysis)
- United States v. McGregor, 650 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2011) (deference to district court factual findings on suppression)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances and officer inferences)
- United States v. Jones, 187 F.3d 210 (1st Cir. 1999) (custodial interrogation analysis)