United States v. Bullard
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9307
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bullard was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack (two counts) after police entered Room 318 of a Greensboro hotel with consent from a hotel employee; they found cocaine and paraphernalia, then later found more cocaine and cash during a warrant-backed search; Bullard, not registered as a guest, claimed the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Officers entered Room 318 with third-party consent from Parrish and observed drug-related evidence in plain view, which supported a later warrant application.
- A protective sweep and initial luggage opening occurred; the independent-source doctrine later saved the subsequent warrant-based searches from taint, and Bullard was arrested with cocaine and cash.
- Bullard moved to suppress the evidence; the district court denied the motion, ruling he had no legitimate privacy expectation as an unregistered guest and that consent and plain view supported the searches.
- Bullard pleaded guilty to Count Two while preserving appeal rights, and was sentenced to 240 months; he challenged the suppression ruling, sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, and retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bullard had a Fourth Amendment privacy interest in Room 318 | Bullard argues he had a privacy expectation. | The hotel policy and NC law negate privacy for unregistered guests. | Court assumes possible privacy interest but upholds denial if search lawful. |
| Whether the luggage search violated Fourth Amendment protections | Search of luggage tainted later evidence. | Independent source saved warrant-based evidence; plain view supported initial seizure. | Independent source doctrine saved the evidence; no suppression required. |
| Whether crack-vs-powder sentencing disparities violate Equal Protection or Due Process | Disparities are unconstitutional and discriminatory. | Precedent upholds the disparities; no violation. | Disparities do not violate equal protection or due process. |
| Whether the Fair Sentencing Act applies retroactively to Bullard’s case | FSA should apply to pending cases. | Savings Statute precludes retroactive application. | FSA does not apply retroactively; no resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinn v. United States, 475 U.S. 791 (1986) (privacy expectation must be objectively reasonable; not vicariously asserted)
- Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000) (legitimate expectation of privacy requires societal recognition of reasonableness)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent source doctrine requires lack of taint from earlier illegality if warrant would have been sought anyway)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (third-party consent may be valid if authority is reasonable)
- Buckner, 473 F.3d 551 (2007) (objective belief that third party could consent to search)
- Kitchens, 114 F.3d 29 (1997) (guest may have privacy after period with pattern or practice)
- Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395 (2008) ( Fourth Circuit on taint and independent source)
- Currence, 446 F.3d 554 (2006) (search incident to arrest boundaries)
- Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti, 263 F.3d 102 (2001) (statutory retroactivity considerations)