United States v. Raymond Bullette, III
854 F.3d 261
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA agents investigated a suspected PCP lab after a desert house fire and neighbor reports of chemical odors and suspicious activity.
- Around 1:00 a.m. deputies found three unlocked vehicles parked near a shed with chemical drums and PCC crystals; the area was declared a crime scene.
- Agent Willey arrived ~3:00 a.m.; the Pontiac (no visible plate) contained food, documents, cellphones, and bottles that appeared to be PCP; the vehicle appeared recently abandoned.
- At about 6:00 a.m., without a warrant, agents opened and searched the Pontiac citing safety concerns, impoundment practice, and an intent to identify the owner; later warrants were obtained for cellphones still operational.
- Defendant Bullette was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute PCP; he moved to suppress evidence from the Pontiac alleging the warrantless search was unlawful. The district court denied the motion; the Fourth Circuit affirmed on inevitable-discovery grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Bullette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless search of Pontiac was unlawful | Search was justified because agents would have lawfully impounded and inventory-searched the vehicle, making discovery inevitable | Search was unlawful; agents should have obtained a warrant between arrival and search, and government failed to prove routine inventory procedure | Court held evidence admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine because impoundment and an inventory search would have inevitably uncovered the items |
| Whether exigent circumstances or automobile exception applied | Alternatively, probable cause plus safety/exigent concerns justified search | Contended no such exception applied and warrant required | Court declined to decide these exceptions, resolving case on inevitable-discovery instead |
| Whether government needed written inventory policy or step-by-step testimony to invoke inevitable discovery | DEA agent testimony about standard practice sufficed to show routine inventory procedures | Government must produce written policy or detailed procedural testimony | Court held written policy not required; agent testimony may suffice for inevitable-discovery showing |
| Admissibility of cellphone evidence given Riley | Government obtained a warrant for cellphone before searching its contents | N/A (defendant challenged initial seizure/search) | Court noted warrant for the phone’s contents was properly sought before searching and applied inevitable-discovery to phone evidence as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (doctrine of inevitable discovery)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (limitations on exclusionary rule and exceptions)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (lawful inventory-search standards)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches and impoundment reasonableness)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (inevitable discovery and attenuation principles)
- United States v. Brown, 787 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. on impoundment and inventories)
- United States v. Ford, 986 F.2d 57 (4th Cir. on showing routine inventory procedures)
- United States v. Matthews, 591 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. on inventory scope and exposed items)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cellphone search requires warrant)