342 F. Supp. 3d 375
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Defendant Calvin Campbell was serving a term of supervised release (51 months) after a 2007 federal drug conviction and signed a condition permitting searches based on reasonable suspicion.
- On Aug. 2, 2018, NY State Troopers stopped Campbell for illegally tinted windows; the MDT indicated he was on supervised release and gave probation contact info.
- U.S. Probation Officer Jeremy Bedette, alerted by two confidential informants that Campbell was involved in drug activity and possibly armed, arrived within minutes; he observed three cell phones in the center console and Campbell acted irate and uncooperative.
- Bedette obtained supervisor authorization to search the vehicle pursuant to Campbell’s supervised-release search condition; the search recovered heroin, cocaine/fentanyl, and marijuana packaged for distribution.
- At the revocation hearing, facts were largely undisputed; Defendant argued the stop/search violated the Fourth Amendment and sought suppression; the court held exclusionary rule inapplicable to supervised-release revocation and alternatively found reasonable suspicion supported detention and search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of exclusionary rule to supervised-release revocation | Exclusionary rule does not apply; Scott controls | Scott distinguishable; suppression required | Exclusionary rule does not apply; evidence admissible |
| Whether detention was unlawfully prolonged | Brief extension justified by reasonable suspicion from informants and probation officer’s input | Prolongation exceeded traffic-stop mission and thus violated Fourth Amendment | Detention was not unreasonable; reasonable suspicion justified brief extension |
| Whether search of vehicle met Fourth Amendment | Search authorized by supervised-release condition on reasonable suspicion supported by CI tips, multiple phones, and defendant’s behavior | Search lacked reasonable suspicion and thus violated Fourth Amendment | Search supported by reasonable suspicion; constitutionally reasonable |
| Sufficiency of proof for supervised-release violations | Evidence seized (drugs packaged for distribution) proves possession and intent to distribute by preponderance | If evidence suppressed, Gov’t cannot meet burden | With evidence admitted, Gov’t proved violations by preponderance; revocation warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes federal exclusionary rule in criminal trials)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (Sup. Ct.) (exclusionary rule does not bar evidence at parole revocation hearings)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (Sup. Ct.) (exclusionary rule is prudential and balances deterrence against social costs)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (Sup. Ct.) (traffic-stop duration limited to mission; extensions require reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for brief investigative stops)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct.) (totality-of-circumstances test for informant tips)
- Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (Sup. Ct.) (probationer’s reduced expectation of privacy; reasonable suspicion standard for searches)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct.) (due process framework for revocation proceedings)
- United States v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 446 (2d Cir.) (probation/supervised-release privacy expectations and searches)
- United States v. Carthen, 681 F.3d 94 (2d Cir.) (standard of proof and rights in revocation proceedings)