United States v. Kenyatta Robinson, 663 F. App'x 215

Robinson, serving an eight-year sentence for drug distribution, was paroled to a halfway house in August 2011 and absconded in December 2011; a warrant was issued for his arrest.
In November 2013, police received a tip that Robinson was at his mother’s house; surveillance observed him entering and leaving a Chevrolet Tahoe and handling a bag that appeared to contain drugs.
Robinson was arrested on the porch; a bag with white residue tested positive for cocaine; a K-9 unit alerted to drugs in the Tahoe; officers sought a search warrant for the Tahoe.
Before towing, an officer entered the Tahoe, started it, rolled up windows, locked doors, and shut the door; a warrant was later issued and the Tahoe was searched at headquarters, yielding cash, a scale, crack and powder cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and documents tying the vehicle to Robinson.
Robinson moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing false statements in the warrant application and prior searches; the district court denied suppression, ruling the automobile exception applicable and rejecting the sneak-peek claim.
Robinson was convicted at a bench trial on two counts of possession with intent to distribute; on appeal, he contends suppression was wrong and hearsay at the suppression hearing violated Confrontation Clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Tahoe search was valid under the automobile exception	Robinson contends lack of probable cause or misleading statements in the warrant.	The officers had probable cause based on observed drug activity and testing.	Yes; automobile exception applied; search was lawful.
Whether there was an impermissible sneak-peek search of the Tahoe	There was an unlawful pre-warrant intrusion into the vehicle.	No sneak peek occurred; prior handling did not constitute a search warrant-voiding intrusion.	No error; no sneak peek found.
Whether admission of secondhand testimony about a K-9 alert violated Confrontation Clause	Rattigan’s testimony about another officer’s report violated Confrontation Clause.	Confrontation Clause not applicable at suppression hearings; admissibility not plain error.	Not plain error; Confrontation Clause not applicable at suppression hearing.

United States v. Donahue, 764 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2014) (automobile exception requires probable cause to believe evidence is in vehicle)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court 1983) (probable cause standard; totality of the circumstances)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 2004) (Confrontation Clause trial-right focus; not applicable to suppression hearings)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (Supreme Court 1980) (hearsay and other evidence permissible at suppression hearings)
Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (Supreme Court 1968) (Confrontation is a trial right)
Ebert v. Gaetz, 610 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2010) (rejects confrontation rights at suppression hearings)