United States v. Fareed Ray
704 F. App'x 132
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Troopers arrested Michael Bobb after a traffic stop, searched his car with owner consent, and found guns and drug paraphernalia; Bobb agreed to cooperate and identified a contact named “Diego.”
- In a courthouse interview, Bobb arranged a guns-for-drugs transaction with “Diego,” provided a phone number, and in troopers’ presence called and spoke (troopers heard only Bobb’s side) to arrange drugs-for-gun details.
- Law enforcement identified “Diego” as Fareed Ray via databases and showed Bobb a photo; Bobb positively identified Ray as “Diego.”
- Surveillance located a Honda with Ray as a rear passenger arriving at the Burger King meeting place; the car left, and thereafter “Diego” (Ray) called to change the meeting location citing that the original spot was “too hot.”
- Troopers observed the Honda near the new location, arrested Ray for attempted delivery of a controlled substance, searched him (finding marijuana and later crack), recovered his phone (which rang when troopers called the “Diego” number), and searched the vehicle (finding cocaine).
- Ray moved to suppress evidence as the arrest lacked probable cause; the District Court denied the motion, Ray was convicted, and he appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether troopers had probable cause to arrest Ray for attempted delivery of a controlled substance | Ray: arrest rested on unreliable, uncorroborated information from cooperating arrestee Bobb and mere presence at meeting sites is insufficient | Government: totality (Bobb’s arrangements, ID, surveillance, phone linkage) provided reasonably trustworthy information supporting probable cause | Court: Probable cause existed based on Bobb’s statements, photo ID, phone calls, surveillance, and collective knowledge doctrine; affirm denial of suppression |
| Whether officers unreasonably failed to corroborate Bobb before arresting Ray | Ray: officers did not hear Ray agree to a deal or verify drug possession, so Bobb’s tip was insufficient | Government: corroboration occurred via photo ID, matching calls, observed arrival and movements consistent with the planned deal | Court: corroboration through surveillance and phone linkage made reliance reasonable; probable cause satisfied |
| Whether Ray’s presence at Burger King and near second location sufficed for probable cause | Ray: mere presence at meeting places is innocent and insufficient | Government: movements matched the arranged transaction and countersurveillance indicators supported criminal intent | Court: Presence plus context (calls, ID, change of location as “too hot,” countersurveillance) supported probable cause |
| Whether evidence seized post-arrest should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful arrest | Ray: if arrest lacked probable cause, subsequent searches and evidence are tainted | Government: arrest was lawful; searches incident to arrest and vehicle search valid | Court: Because arrest was supported by probable cause, search incident to arrest and vehicle search were lawful; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (warrantless arrest reasonable where probable cause exists for a criminal offense)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips; veracity, reliability, basis of knowledge relevant)
- United States v. Laville, 480 F.3d 187 (probable cause exists when reasonably trustworthy information warrants a person of reasonable caution)
- United States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251 (arrest lacked probable cause where officer testimony failed to show belief a crime occurred; contrasted by this case)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (if vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists, vehicle may be searched without more)