United States v. Babilonia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6515

Background

Roger Key was convicted of drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire (Terry Harrison), among other charges; sentenced to life plus 30 years.
The Harrison murder was carried out by Matthew Wilson after recruitment and planning by associates (Matt, Beans, Cuzzo); Wilson testified he expected to be "held down" (i.e., provided for) and was paid $1,000 by Key after the killing. Key was present during planning and met/paid Wilson post-shooting.
Law enforcement surveilled Key in summer 2012; agents observed a man place a weighted green bag in a Toyota Sienna, followed and stopped the vehicle on August 6, 2012 (Car Stop), and found $10,000 in the bag plus other items in the car.
Key was arrested on September 19, 2012 in his apartment; agents observed multiple cell phones, an iPad, and an address book and, with Key’s verbal consent to search for guns/drugs, seized electronic devices (Apartment Search).
Key moved to suppress items from the Car Stop and Apartment Search; the district court denied suppression, the jury convicted on Counts One–Six (including conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire), and Key appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that murder-for-hire involved "pecuniary value" (§1958)	Government: jury could infer a quid‑pro‑quo—Wilson was promised to be "held down," discussed payment with Matt, and was paid $1,000 by Key after the murder, showing intent to pay for the killing.	Key: pre-murder promises were vague (a favor), post-murder payment does not prove an agreement to pay; Frampton/Chong argue unspecified favors or post hoc payments are insufficient.	Affirmed: a rational jury could infer that parties had an understanding Wilson would be paid (pecuniary value) and that Key knowingly participated in the conspiracy.
Legality of Car Stop and Apartment Search (Fourth Amendment)	Government: surveillance + observed handoff (green bag weighed like drugs/proceeds), flight during stop, and officers’ training/support probable cause for automobile search; inventory doctrine makes rear-car evidence inevitable; plain‑view seizure of electronics was justified by investigative context.	Key: car search exceeded permissible exceptions (no search incident to arrest or probable cause for entire vehicle); phones/tablet/address book are ubiquitous and not immediately incriminating.	Affirmed: court credited officers’ experience and collective knowledge—probable cause supported automobile search; rear items would have been found in inventory; plain view seizure of electronic devices was justified given investigatory context and later warrant for device search.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Frampton, 382 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2004) (defines pecuniary‑value requirement for §1958 and rejects vague promises as insufficient)
United States v. Hardwick, 523 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2008) (requires quid‑pro‑quo understanding for murder‑for‑hire convictions)
United States v. Rosemond, 841 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
United States v. Hussain, 835 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for suppression factual findings)
United States v. Navas, 597 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2010) (automobile‑exception framework)
Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1996) (automobile exception supports warrantless vehicle searches when probable cause exists)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (scope of vehicle searches under automobile exception)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause standard)
United States v. Perea, 986 F.2d 633 (2d Cir. 1993) (inevitable discovery/inventory search doctrine)
United States v. Chong, 419 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (post‑murder payment insufficient to prove pecuniary consideration absent pre‑agreement evidence)
United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (circumstantial evidence may establish specific intent in conspiracy)
United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2008) (inventory searches of vehicles after arrest)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain view doctrine)
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (context on pervasiveness of cell phones and privacy concerns)