United States v. Gordon
895 F. Supp. 2d 1011
D. Haw.2012Background
- Defendant Gordon was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; motions to suppress evidence from a black bag, wallet, and cellular phone were filed.
- An August 6, 2012 evidentiary hearing was held; witnesses included DEA agents and HPD officers; stipulations covered the wallet contents and a boarding pass.
- Surveillance captured Gordon arriving at Higa’s residence with a black bag, entering, handling macadamia nut candy boxes, and leaving with the bag as officers detained him outside.
- The bag was searched at the scene and then again at the DEA/Federal Building; currency was found inside candy boxes planted earlier in the apartment.
- A wallet taken from Gordon at arrest contained a boarding pass for a 1:00 p.m. flight; the wallet was searched later at the DEA offices.
- A cellular phone taken from Gordon was searched at the scene and again later; call logs and contact lists were preserved with photographs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bag search incident to arrest was lawful | US argues initial and subsequent bag searches were valid under incident-to-arrest. | Gordon contends the bag search violated the Fourth Amendment. | upheld; searches valid as incident to arrest |
| Whether the wallet search incident to arrest was lawful | US relies on Robinson lineage for wallet as part of the person. | Gordon challenges as not contemporaneous to the arrest. | upheld; wallet search valid as incident to arrest |
| Whether the cellular telephone search incident to arrest was lawful | US contends contemporaneous search preserved evidence and limited scope. | Gordon argues privacy and scope concerns in light of modern phones. | upheld; contemporaneous search valid as incident to arrest |
| Whether Gant, Maddox, and related precedents control the validity of searches of items near the arrestee | US asserts Chimel/Gant framework supports these searches. | Gordon argues Gant limits post-handcuff container searches; Nohara etc. apply. | valid under Turner factors; Nohara-based reasoning persists |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (full search of arrestee’s person permitted; personal effects may be searched)
- Edwards v. California, 415 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1974) (searches during detention may proceed without warrant)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (scope of search to arrestee’s immediate surroundings)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; focus on access to evidence/weapons)
- United States v. Maddox, 614 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (Turner factors for contemporaneity of search with arrest)
- United States v. Nohara, 3 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholds search of bag while arrestee handcuffed; application of Turner factors)
- Passaro v. United States, 624 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1980) (wallet searches incident to arrest upheld)
- Ziller v. United States, 623 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1980) (contents of wallet may be searched incident to arrest)
- Monclavo-Cruz v. United States, 662 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1981) (purse/possession contexts distinguished from personal wallet searches)
- United States v. Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1983) (uninterrupted possession permits subsequent searches without a warrant)
- United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) (Turner factors and contemporaneity in search-incident-to-arrest analysis)
- United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (cell phone searches; limited scope appropriate at scene)