United States v. Bailey
743 F.3d 322
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Bailey was convicted in EDNY (2007) of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and felon in possession; conviction affirmed before remand; Supreme Court reversed Summers-based detention basis and left Terry issue open on remand.
- Warrant obtained July 28, 2005 to search basement apartment at 103 Lake Drive; informant reported visible handgun during drug transactions at that site.
- Officers surveilled Bailey and Middleton outside 103 Lake Drive, pulled them over in a Lexus one mile away, and conducted a patdown to assess оружие; Bailey identified himself and claimed 103 Lake Drive as residence.
- Bailey and Middleton were handcuffed after initial patdown, transported back to the premises, and a search revealed a gun and drugs; Bailey allegedly stated he did not live there.
- Keys recovered from Bailey matched locks at the basement apartment; a driver’s license indicated Bay Shore residence.
- Court on remand held that Bailey’s initial stop and patdown were permissible under Terry; handcuffing exceeded Terry, tainting post-stop statements; admission of tainted statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial stop and patdown were reasonable under Terry. | Bailey contends no reasonable suspicion. | Officers had reasonable suspicion and pursued investigation. | Yes; initial stop and patdown were reasonable under Terry. |
| Whether handcuffing Bailey after the patdown exceeded Terry’s scope. | Bailey argues handcuffing was unnecessary and unlawful. | Authorities justified handcuffing for safety during the ongoing search. | No; handcuffing exceeded Terry’s scope. |
| Whether Bailey’s exculpatory statements after handcuffing were admissible. | Statements tainted by Fourth Amendment violation should be excluded. | Statements potentially voluntary; may be admitted. | Admissibility tainted; but harmless error. |
| Whether admission of tainted statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | Harmlessness not established due to tainted evidence. | Evidence otherwise strong; taint harmless. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether Summers’ off-site detention is permissible after Bailey III; Terry governs off-site detention. | Summers permits off-site detention incident to search. | Bailey III confines Summers; Terry may justify off-site stop. | Terry may justify off-site stop on remand; Summers not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (U.S. 1981) (detention of occupants during execution of a search warrant; spatial limits questioned)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes permissible brief detentions for reasonable suspicion and weapons frisk)
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (S. Ct. 2013) (Bailey III; Summers spatial rule limited; Terry stop potential off-site permissible on remand)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
- Salazar, 945 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1991) (descriptions may support reasonable suspicion when joined with other facts)