United States v. Rasberry
882 F.3d 241
1st Cir.2018Background
- DEA agent Paul Wolf, investigating a suspected drug dealer known as "Champagne," learned from a cooperating source that Todd Rasberry was in a Scarborough motel room and that drugs would be found there; the source surrendered heroin and gave a room key and consent to search.
- Officers (aware of Rasberry’s prior drug/weapon history) entered the motel room with guns drawn, detained and handcuffed Rasberry, and conducted a ~20-minute search of the room that uncovered drug paraphernalia but no drugs.
- Before removing the handcuffs, Wolf performed a fuller pat-down and felt a softball-sized hardened object in Rasberry’s groin/undershorts; Rasberry said it was part of his anatomy, Wolf arrested him, and removed a bagged ball containing heroin and cocaine.
- Rasberry moved to suppress, arguing the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment and the "plain feel" doctrine; the district court denied the motion, finding (alternatively) plain-feel or probable-cause-to-arrest grounds for the seizure.
- Rasberry entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute, reserved his right to appeal denial of suppression, was sentenced to 138 months, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Rasberry's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Scope/duration of the detention (Terry vs. de facto arrest) | Detention (handcuffs, weapons drawn, 20-minute search) exceeded Terry stop and became a de facto arrest | Officers had reasonable suspicion and took proportionate safety measures while diligently searching; conditions justified detention | The stop remained a lawful Terry stop; precautions and 20-minute duration were reasonable under the totality of circumstances |
| 2. Lawfulness of pat-down before removing handcuffs | Second, fuller frisk was unnecessary because initial frisk sufficed to dispel weapon concern | Initial frisk was limited to lower back; reasonable suspicion persisted to justify a second, fuller frisk | Second pat-down was reasonable because earlier frisk was limited and suspicion remained |
| 3. Seizure under "plain feel" doctrine | Object wrapped in plastic prevented incriminating character from being "immediately apparent" by touch | Even if plain-feel were borderline, probable cause to arrest existed based on totality of circumstances, allowing search incident to arrest | Court affirmed seizure on alternative ground: probable cause existed to arrest, so seizure incident to arrest was lawful (did not need to resolve plain-feel issue) |
| 4. Intrusiveness/privacy of undershorts search | Extraction of contraband from groin/undershorts was overly invasive and degrading | Officer had reasonable suspicion contraband was hidden in undergarments; removal was done privately and non-degrading | No plain error; given suspicion and manner of extraction, search was not unconstitutionally intrusive |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops and limited frisks on reasonable suspicion)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) ("plain feel" doctrine: touch may justify seizure if incriminating character is immediately apparent)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (probable-cause and reasonable-suspicion determinations reviewed de novo; courts consider totality of circumstances)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality-of-the-circumstances, practical common-sense test)
- United States v. Schiavo, 29 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1994) (discusses application of Dickerson/plain-feel in First Circuit)
- United States v. Pontoo, 666 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step Terry-stop analysis: justification at inception and scope reasonably related to circumstances)