United States v. Crooker
688 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Crooker was charged with marijuana possession and firearms/ammunition possession while using illegal narcotics after a 2004 search of 62 Joseph Avenue, which did not have a warrant listing items or incorporating the supporting affidavit.
- The warrant applied to 62 Joseph Avenue for explosives/biological weapons-related offenses and did not authorize seizure of firearms or drugs, raising a challenge to conformity with Groh v. Ramirez.
- Agents executed the warrant on July 15, 2004; Crooker was questioned in the yard and in a car, frisked, and not read Miranda warnings.
- During questioning Crooker described the family’s access to four safes; agents opened the two Crooker-accessible safes and seized weapons and ammunition.
- Agents later seized marijuana and related items after discussions with Crooker, who acknowledged marijuana use; Crooker sought suppression of statements and evidence.
- Crooker appealed the district court’s denial of suppression, challenging probable cause, scope, and particularity of the warrant, plus Miranda-related suppression arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrant issuance | Crooker: no probable cause linking 62 Joseph Avenue to the crimes | Government: CI and coded communications showed probable link to ricin/weapons | Probable cause supported the warrant |
| Scope of the search | Crooker: tackle box and contents beyond warrant; plain view not applicable | Agents were authorized to search containers for ricin/biologicals; plain view applied | Tackle box within scope; plain-view seizure proper; some evidence harmless error if over-seized |
| Warrant's particularity | Crooker: warrant lacking specific list of items; raised on appeal | Government: Rule 12(e) waivers apply; good cause may excuse failure to raise earlier | Waiver; plain-error review not warranted absent good cause; can be addressed for good cause |
| Custodial interrogation and Miranda warnings | Crooker: interrogations occurred in police-dominated setting without Miranda | Interrogations were non-custodial consensual conversations | Not custodial; Miranda warnings not required; statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (warrant must describe items to be seized or be incorporated)
- United States v. Pontoo, 666 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2011) (review of suppression rulings uses district-found facts and de novo legal review)
- United States v. McMullin, 568 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Rogers, 521 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (containers within premises may be searched if could conceal items described in warrant)
- United States v. Paneto, 661 F.3d 709 (1st Cir. 2011) (plain-view seizure requirements while within lawful reach)
- United States v. Guerrier, 669 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (custody analysis for Miranda under totality of circumstances)
- Walker, United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011) (Rule 12(e) waiver and review of suppression challenges)