United States v. Reginald Dargan, Jr., 738 F.3d 643

Background

Three‑person armed robbery of a Columbia, MD mall jewelry store on March 30, 2011; over 30 Rolex watches stolen. One participant wielded a knife.
Police later arrested several suspects; appellant Reginald Dargan ("Little Reggie") was arrested two months after the robbery. A search warrant for his residence authorized seizure of, inter alia, "indicia of occupancy."
During the search officers seized a Louis Vuitton belt receipt from a bag in Dargan’s bedroom showing purchase by "Regg Raxx" the day after the robbery.
Co‑defendant Deontaye Harvey spoke to a cellmate, Zachary Shanaberger, confessing involvement in the robbery with two co‑conspirators and stating that all three were incarcerated together; Harvey did not identify Dargan by name and later invoked the Fifth Amendment.
At trial the government introduced the receipt, text messages between Dargan and Harvey about bringing a knife, surveillance identifications (including by Dargan’s godmother), and Shanaberger’s testimony summarizing Harvey’s statements. Jury convicted Dargan; district court denied suppression and admitted the out‑of‑court statements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dargan)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether the LV receipt was outside the warrant’s scope	Receipt not listed in Attachment A; seizure exceeded particular description	Attachment A included broad "indicia of occupancy," which reasonably/commonsensically includes a sales receipt naming occupant	Court: Admission affirmed — receipt fell within "indicia of occupancy" under a commonsense reading
Whether opening the bag and seizing the receipt was exploratory rummaging	Officers exceeded warrant by searching bag on dresser absent specific listing	Warrant language ("including but not limited to") and listed small items justified opening bag to check for listed items	Court: Search was lawful; not exploratory rummaging; seizure valid
Whether Harvey’s jailhouse statements were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3)	Statements not sufficiently self‑inculpatory or corroborated to qualify as statements against interest	Statements were against Harvey’s penal interest, made to a cellmate, and corroborated by other evidence (texts, IDs)	Court: Admission under 804(b)(3) was proper; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether admission of Harvey’s statements violated the Confrontation Clause / Bruton	Statements implicated Dargan and were admitted without cross‑examination, violating Crawford and Bruton	Statements were nontestimonial (informal jailhouse talk) and Harvey was unavailable; Bruton inapplicable because not a co‑defendant’s confession at joint trial	Court: No Confrontation Clause violation — statements nontestimonial; Bruton inapplicable; admission constitutional

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511 (4th Cir. 2010) (commonsense construction of warrant particularity)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (history/purposes of particularity requirement)
Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976) (limits on exploratory rummaging)
United States v. Dornhofer, 859 F.2d 1195 (4th Cir. 1988) (avoid hypertechnical warrant interpretation)
United States v. Phillips, 588 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 2009) (broad/inclusive warrant language and officer incentives to seek warrants)
United States v. Srivastava, 540 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (preference for warrants over warrantless searches)
Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (commonsense review of affidavits and probable cause)
United States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371 (4th Cir. 2001) (particularity preserved despite reasonable seizures)
Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) (scope of statement‑against‑interest rule)
United States v. Bumpass, 60 F.3d 1099 (4th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for 804(b)(3) admission)
United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) (assessing declarant’s motive to lie; statements to fellow prisoners less likely to be fabricated)
United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008) (statements implicating conspiracy analyzed under 804(b)(3))
United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782 (4th Cir. 2013) (factors for corroboration under 804(b)(3))
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (statements "from one prisoner to another" are nontestimonial)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause rule)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (prophylactic rule for co‑defendant confessions at joint trials)
United States v. Jones, 716 F.3d 851 (4th Cir. 2013) (nontestimonial nature of jailhouse statements)