United States v. Courtland Turner
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18480
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Turner was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a broken license-plate light; officer discovered Turner had an outstanding arrest warrant and removed him from the car.
- Officer observed a partially concealed plastic bag under the front passenger seat; Henderson (driver) handed the bag to the officer and said they purchased gift cards from a third party.
- The bag contained roughly 100 gift cards; Henderson lacked receipts and admitted purchasing the cards to resell for profit.
- Officer seized the cards as evidence based on training/experience linking large numbers of cards to theft/fraud, then (without a warrant) scanned the magnetic stripes in the patrol car and later through the Secret Service, revealing altered cards.
- Turner moved to suppress the seizure and the magnetic-stripe scans; the district court denied suppression. Turner conditionally pled guilty and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was seizure of gift cards unlawful? | Consent (Henderson) did not extend to permanent seizure; Turner challenges possession. | Plain-view/probable-cause and/or Henderson’s consent justified seizure. | Seizure lawful under plain-view: facts and officer experience gave probable cause. |
| Did Turner have standing to challenge seizure? | He jointly possessed the cards and the bag was under his seat. | Government questioned standing tied to Henderson’s consent. | Turner had standing to challenge the seizure; court did not need to resolve consent scope. |
| Was scanning the magnetic stripe a Fourth Amendment search? | Scanning reveals electronic information and implicates privacy expectations akin to phones/computers. | Gift-card magnetic stripes store minimal, issuer-controlled, commercially-exposed data routinely read by third parties; no reasonable expectation of privacy. | Not a search: society does not recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in gift-card magnetic-stripe data as of current technology. |
| Does Riley (cell-phone precedent) control? | Riley shows strong privacy interests in electronic data; applies here. | Riley distinguished: phones store vast, private data; gift cards store limited issuer data for commercial use. | Riley is distinguishable; magnetic stripes lack the storage/purpose that warrants Riley protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (plain-view doctrine requires lawful presence and immediately apparent incriminating nature)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (clarifies plain-view requirements)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy framework)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell-phone searches implicate extensive privacy interests; distinguishes digital-storage cases)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (technology can alter Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine limits expectations of privacy in information conveyed to third parties)
- United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2001) (probable cause as a fair probability standard)
- United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818 (5th Cir. 1996) (probable cause inquiry considers officers’ training and experience)
- United States v. Paige, 136 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 1998) (seizure of physical items requires warrant or justification)
- United States v. Bah, 794 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2015) (magnetic-stripe data limited and intended for third-party reading; no reasonable privacy expectation)
- United States v. DE L’Isle, 825 F.3d 426 (8th Cir. 2016) (similar holding on card-swiping; acknowledges possible future technological changes)
- United States v. Alabi, 943 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D.N.M. 2013) (discusses magnetic-stripe content and re-encoding technology)