United States v. Hussain
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16086
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Damian Cunningham was convicted by a jury of a robbery conspiracy and using/carrying a firearm in relation to that conspiracy; a loaded gun found in his car was key evidence.
- On December 26, 2011, officers in an unmarked car stopped Cunningham for running a stop sign; Cunningham and passenger Lacey Scott were asked out of the car at night in the Bronx.
- Officers observed Cunningham fumble toward the center console while holding a smartphone, heard he had a pocketknife (which he volunteered), and saw Scott sitting in an "unnatural" position; both were taken to the rear of the car without handcuffs.
- Officer McAloon then searched the passenger compartment without a warrant and found a loaded gun under the front passenger seat; Scott fled briefly and was caught; an inventory search later found duct tape and gloves in the trunk.
- Cunningham moved to suppress the gun (and the trunk items as derivative), arguing the warrantless interior search was not justified as a protective search under Michigan v. Long; the District Court denied suppression and admitted the gun at trial.
- The Second Circuit reversed: it held the facts on the record did not establish the objective reasonable suspicion of immediate danger required to justify a full protective search of the passenger compartment under Long.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the passenger compartment was justified as a protective search under Michigan v. Long | Cunningham: officers lacked specific, articulable facts showing immediate danger or that occupants could access weapons; thus search unlawful | Government: furtive movements toward console, Scott’s "unnatural" posture, Cunningham’s knife and delayed compliance together gave reasonable suspicion of danger justifying search | Reversed: facts were insufficient to establish objective reasonable suspicion of immediate dangerousness to justify a Long protective search |
| Whether evidence (gun; trunk items) should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful search | Cunningham: suppress gun and derivative trunk evidence | Government: gun admissible under Long; trunk items admissible under inevitable discovery following lawful inventory search | Court: gun suppression warranted; remanded for further proceedings (thus trunk-items issue not sustained on this record) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain gun-possession conviction | Cunningham: challenges sufficiency | Government: trial evidence (victim testimony, admissions) supports possession | Held: evidence sufficient to support conviction when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution |
| Whether collective knowledge of officers could justify search | Cunningham: officers who searched lacked communicated facts; do not impute Maudsley’s observations to McAloon | Government: officers were working together; collective knowledge applies | Held: court will not impute uncommunicated observations; no record that Maudsley conveyed his suspicion to McAloon, so collective-knowledge not applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (search of passenger compartment limited to areas a weapon may be placed is permissible where officer reasonably believes suspect dangerous)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop-and-frisk standard: specific and articulable facts required for protective searches)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable-suspicion assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (ordering occupants out of vehicle is permissible but does not by itself justify a full field-type search)
- United States v. Aguilar, 585 F.3d 652 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93 (2d Cir.) (furtive movements toward hidden area can support reasonable suspicion when hands/objects not visible)