19 F.4th 547
1st Cir.2021Background
- Late-night traffic stop after a “shots fired” call: officers pursued a BMW that drove away and stopped; occupants ordered out with guns drawn.
- Passenger (16) was handcuffed and sent home; Guerrero (driver) was handcuffed and arrested for eluding.
- Officers searched the BMW and found a loaded magazine in a backpack behind the driver’s seat; no firearm was located.
- Federal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Guerrero moved to suppress ammo evidence.
- District court granted suppression: it found the search objectively justified under Long but held officers lacked the subjective fear required by United States v. Lott.
- Government appealed under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, arguing Lott’s subjective actual-fear requirement is inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority (e.g., Whren, Buie) and should be abandoned; the First Circuit agreed, reversed suppression, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Guerrero's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lott requires a subjective, actual fear by officers to justify a Long protective vehicle search | Lott controls: a frisk/search is invalid if officers did not actually fear for safety | Whren, Buie, and later Supreme Court cases make officer subjective motive legally irrelevant; Lott should be abrogated | Lott's subjective-actual-fear requirement abrogated under the law-of-the-circuit exception; Fourth Amendment reasonableness is objective |
| Whether the protective search of the BMW was lawful under Long | Even if objectively reasonable facts existed, lack of actual officer fear (per Lott) renders the search unconstitutional | The facts objectively supported a protective search; subjective fear unnecessary | Court concluded objective basis supports the search; suppression reversed and case remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the law-of-the-circuit exception permits overruling prior panel precedent (Lott) | The exception should not apply; earlier First Circuit holdings remain binding | Intervening Supreme Court precedent calls Lott into legitimate question; exception applies | The panel applied the narrow exception and held Lott would have been decided differently in light of subsequent Supreme Court cases |
| Whether Gant or related doctrines bar a Long protective search because occupants were restrained | Gant limits searches when occupants are under control; here occupants were controlled so search invalid | Gant is limited to searches incident to arrest and does not displace Long protective-sweep analysis | Gant does not control Long sweeps; it does not defeat the protective-search justification here |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes stop-and-frisk reasonableness test)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (permissible protective search of vehicle interior under objective reasonable belief of danger)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness assessed objectively; officer motive irrelevant)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweeps of homes permissible on articulable, objectively reasonable grounds)
- United States v. Lott, 870 F.2d 778 (1st Cir. 1989) (held officers must actually fear for safety to justify vehicle frisk — abrogated here insofar as inconsistent with later controlling precedent)
- United States v. Ivery, 427 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2005) (applied Lott’s subjective-plus-objective requirement)
- United States v. McGregor, 650 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2011) (noted tension between Lott and Whren)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is predominantly objective)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest; does not displace Long protective-sweep rule)