United States v. Mamadou Bah
794 F.3d 617
6th Cir.2015Background
- Traffic stop of a rental Altima on May 23, 2013 for speeding; driver Mamadou Bah was arrested for driving on a suspended license; passenger Allan Harvey detained.
- Officers searched and impounded the rental car (described as an inventory search) and found ~86 credit/debit/gift cards, multiple cell phones, and other items.
- At the station, officers viewed photographs and a text message on an unlocked Blackberry without a warrant; Special Agent Kimbrough then used a skimmer to read the magnetic strips of 18 cards without a warrant and found many re-encoded (fraudulent) magstripes.
- Secret Service corroborated that dozens of trunk cards had been re-encoded and obtained a warrant to search the phones (the warrant affidavit omitted the warrantless Blackberry review); Bah and Harvey were indicted for counterfeit access device offenses.
- Defendants moved to suppress: (1) vehicle search (inventory/search-incident-to-arrest), (2) warrantless magstripe scans, (3) warrantless Blackberry search and derivative phone searches, and (4) Harvey’s detention. The district court denied suppression; defendants appealed but pled guilty preserving the Fourth Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless scanning of magstripes on cards | Bah/Harvey: scanning magstripes was a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant | Govt: no reasonable expectation of privacy in magstripe data; scan is not a search | Scan was not a search; no reasonable expectation of privacy in magstripe data |
| Warrantless search of Blackberry (and effect on later warrant) | Bah: initial warrantless phone search violated Riley and tainted subsequent warrant | Govt: initial phone search constitutional (disputed); in any event later warrant omitted the tainted evidence | Initial warrantless Blackberry search was unconstitutional under Riley, but later warrant relied on independent, untainted evidence so suppression not required |
| Standing / validity of vehicle inventory search | Harvey: passenger can challenge vehicle search; inventory/search-incident-to-arrest invalid under Gant | Govt: inventory search lawful; Bah (authorized driver) does not contest; Harvey lacks possessory interest | Harvey lacks standing to challenge vehicle search; inventory search upheld as lawful under department policy and inevitable-impound rationale |
| Lawfulness/duration of Harvey’s detention | Harvey: post-stop detention was unreasonably prolonged and unlawful (cites Rodriguez) | Govt: officers had reasonable suspicion/probable cause based on furtive movements and discovery of multiple cards; detention was brief and diligent | Harvey’s detention was reasonable—officer safety, investigatory suspicion, and probable cause supported continued detention and arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers may challenge the legality of a seizure)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant required to search cell phones incident to arrest due to privacy interests)
- United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (cell phone search incident-to-arrest analysis relevant to circuits)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (trespass-based search analysis involving physical intrusion)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (trespass theory of Fourth Amendment search)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (permissibility of standardized inventory searches of impounded vehicles)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (prohibition on extending traffic stops absent reasonable suspicion)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause standard under collective-possession facts)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (limits on exclusionary rule where officers act in good faith)