United States v. Chaney
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15500
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Police raid of a Manchester, NH motel room where Chaney was a guest during a Boyd arrest warrant execution; Chaney was handcuffed on the floor after resisting orders.
- During a protective sweep, officers found drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view inside the room and located ammunition in a closet.
- Detective Newcomb obtained consent to retrieve identification from Chaney, locating a social security card and, in Chaney's pocket, seven bags of off-white substance later identified as crack cocaine.
- A jacket pocket search at the car outside yielded twelve rounds of .38-caliber ammunition after Chaney identified possessions as his.
- Chaney argued suppression was warranted for scope of consent, coercion, and de facto arrest; the district court denied suppression on all grounds, and Chaney pled guilty with a conditional appeal.
- On appeal, the First Circuit reviews for clear error on facts and de novo on legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of consent to search Chaney's pocket | Chaney argues consent limited to identification. | United States contends scope reasonably included removal of items aiding access to identity. | Consent reasonably included removing bags as part of pocket search. |
| voluntariness of consent under totality of circumstances | Chaney asserts coercive police atmosphere rendered consent involuntary. | United States asserts consent was voluntary given prior experience and conduct. | Consent found voluntary; no reversible error. |
| Whether the detention constituted a de facto arrest | Chaney contends draw guns and handcuffs turned detainment into de facto arrest. | United States argues detention was a brief Terry-like stop justified by safety concerns. | Detention did not amount to a de facto arrest; evidence admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court, 1973) (consent must be voluntary and within reasonable scope)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1991) (scope of consent defined by objective reasonableness)
- United States v. Stierhoff, 549 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2008) (Fourth Amendment consent scope and reasonable interpretation)
- United States v. Marshall, 348 F.3d 281 (1st Cir. 2003) (scope of consent guided by objective reasonableness)
- United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971 (1st Cir. 1994) (suspect-focused inquiry for de facto arrest)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 1984) (temporary detentions require reasonable suspicion; not automatic arrest)
- Acosta-Colon v. United States, 157 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1998) (handcuffs and guns do not automatically create a de facto arrest)
- United States v. Trueber, 238 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2001) (detention duration and purpose in assessing stop)
- Owens v. United States, 167 F.3d 739 (1st Cir. 1999) (limits of Terry stops and duration considerations)
- United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2005) (factors justifying stop and precautionary measures)
- United States v. Lee, 317 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2003) (gun-drawn approach to stop does not always constitute arrest)
- United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008) (scale of force during entry does not alone determine voluntariness)
- United States v. Taylor, 162 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998) (detentions and circumstances surrounding stops)