239 F. Supp. 3d 426
D. Conn.2017Background
- Nov. 7, 2015 (Mohegan Sun): Tribal officer Barrows stopped Robertson during a stabbing investigation, seized a pocketknife, asked to "check" for similar weapons, removed a small black drawstring pouch from Robertson’s pocket, opened it and found cocaine; Robertson was arrested.
- May 18, 2016 (New London): Federal, state, and local agents executed an arrest warrant for Robertson at his apartment; he was removed, handcuffed, and secured in the hallway.
- During a protective sweep of the apartment, officers found a safe in a bedroom closet and Officer Zelinski opened a small table drawer near the door while Robertson was handcuffed and saw cocaine.
- Agent Prather (off-scene) ordered removal of the safe “for safekeeping.” Officers removed the safe without a warrant, transported it many miles, field-tested residue (positive for cocaine), then secured search warrants for the apartment (same morning) and the safe (two days later); large amounts of drugs and firearms were later recovered.
- At suppression hearings the court found key officers not credible on material points, concluded several searches/seizures exceeded Fourth Amendment limits, and that police acted recklessly; the court granted Robertson’s motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov.) | Defendant's Argument (Robertson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of Barrows’ search at casino (Terry scope / consent) | Terry stop justified; Robertson consented to a weapons check; inevitable discovery if not suppressed | Search exceeded Terry frisk; consent did not cover opening the pouch; cocaine would not inevitably have been found | Search exceeded Terry; consent limited to weapons-check; inevitable discovery not proved; cocaine suppressed |
| Validity of protective sweep and drawer search | Protective sweep and search-incident-to-arrest justified looking in areas within arrestee’s reach | Officers unlawfully prolonged sweep, brought handcuffed Robertson back inside to create access and then searched drawer pretextually | Sweep initially permissible but was prolonged and manipulated; Zelinski’s drawer search was unlawful and its fruits suppressed |
| Seizure and removal of the safe (plain view / exigency) | Safe seen in plain view; residue indicated drugs; removal was reasonable for safekeeping / exigency | No probable cause when safe was seized; apartment could have been secured; no exigency justified removal or multi-day delay | No probable cause or exigency; plain view did not authorize seizing the entire safe; seizure unlawful and tainted subsequent evidence |
| Application of exclusionary rule / fruits doctrine | Some later evidence should survive (independent source / attenuation / good-faith) | All evidence derived from illegal acts should be excluded as fruit of poisonous tree | Court suppresses evidence from casino search, table-drawer search, and the safe; attenuation/independent-source/good-faith exceptions do not save the tainted warrants here |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (permitting limited investigatory stops and frisks for officer safety)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (Terry frisk must be limited to discovering weapons; manipulation to reveal contraband exceeds scope)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent measured by objective reasonableness)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (arrest warrant authorizes entry into residence where suspect is found but not a general search)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweeps incident to arrest: limited scope/time; need articulable facts for broader sweep)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search-incident-to-arrest scope limited to arrestee’s grab area)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent-source exception not available if warrant was prompted by illegal entry)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (limits on exclusion when officers reasonably rely on erroneous information)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (discusses temporary seizure to secure premises pending warrant; plurality limits application)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (physical trespass doctrine relevant to certain Fourth Amendment searches)