United States v. BOOTH
2:17-cr-00177
W.D. Pa.Dec 13, 2019Background
- Federal investigation into Kimn Booth’s fentanyl/heroin distribution used a confidential human source and multiple controlled buys between Oct 2016–Feb 2017; law enforcement observed deliveries and identified a gold Toyota Avalon as a delivery vehicle.
- McCoy (known as “Dreads”) was identified as a runner in prior buys; Booth and McCoy were photographed leaving a February 2017 controlled buy in the gold Avalon.
- On June 12, 2017, a CHS arranged another buy at the Auto Bath House in Lawrenceville; surveillance located a gold Avalon near the agreed time with McCoy as a passenger communicating with occupants of a nearby red truck.
- Officers activated lights/sirens and pursued the Avalon into the car-wash driveway; McCoy fled from the passenger door, was tackled by Detective Simoni, and a search incident to arrest produced heroin, fentanyl, cash, and a dropped cell phone.
- Detective Niebel opened the driver’s door after Boxley failed to comply with commands, observed Boxley on an active FaceTime call with Booth, forcibly removed and arrested Boxley, and seized Boxley’s phone; both defendants moved to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether/when a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred | Govt: seizure occurred when officers physically restrained each defendant (McCoy when tackled; Boxley when removed). | Defs: they were seized earlier (when vehicle was pulled into parking lot) so stop lacked justification. | Court: McCoy seized when tackled; Boxley seized when officer opened door and forcibly removed him. |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the Avalon | Govt: totality (prior controlled buys, ID of runner, vehicle match, location/time, evasive conduct, flight) supplied reasonable suspicion. | Defs: no traffic violation observed; facts insufficient to justify investigative stop. | Court: reasonable, particularized suspicion existed to initiate stop. |
| Whether evidence seized is fruit of an unlawful stop (suppression) | Govt: stop and subsequent arrests/searches lawful, so evidence admissible. | Defs: stop unlawful; all downstream evidence must be suppressed. | Court: motions denied; evidence not suppressed. |
| Whether probable cause / automobile exception justified searches/arrests | Govt: facts (controlled buy set-up, flight, plain-view FaceTime with Booth) supplied probable cause for arrests and vehicle search. | Defs: even if suspicion, not probable cause for warrantless searches/seizures. | Court: alternatively found probable cause and that automobile exception and search-incident justified seizures/searches. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitting brief investigatory stops on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (flight and evasive behavior as factor supporting reasonable suspicion)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure occurs on physical force or submission to authority)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances and ‘‘fair probability’’ standard for probable cause)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (objective review of reasonable suspicion/probable cause based on historical facts)
- United States v. Donahue, 764 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2014) (automobile exception permits warrantless vehicle searches on probable cause)
- United States v. Bonner, 363 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2004) (flight plus other indicators can create reasonable suspicion)