United States v. Romain
678 F. App'x 23
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Austin Romain, a Rikers Island corrections officer, was convicted after a jury trial of bribery, wire fraud, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
- Law enforcement seized two cellphones from Romain at arrest and obtained a warrant to search their contents; the warrant itself omitted reference to the criminal statutes, though supporting documents included that information.
- Romain moved to suppress phone evidence, arguing the warrant was insufficiently particular and overbroad; district court denied the motion.
- At trial, the government introduced recorded coconspirator statements; Romain argued some statements were not in furtherance of the conspiracy and therefore inadmissible.
- The Second Circuit reviewed denial of suppression and admission of coconspirator statements and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Particularity of warrant for cellphones | Gov't: warrant valid; supporting docs cured any informational gap for practical reliance | Romain: warrant facially deficient because it did not reference charged statutes; exclusion appropriate | Court: Fourth Amendment requires particularity in warrant, but reliance was reasonable under Leon; suppression denied |
| Overbreadth of warrant language ("any"/"any and all") | Gov't: listed categories related to investigation; not overbroad | Romain: phrase "any and all" rendered warrant overbroad | Court: phrase permissible where listed item types relate to charged crimes; warrant not overbroad |
| Applicability of good-faith exception | Gov't: officers reasonably relied on warrant and supporting materials | Romain: omission was obvious; good-faith exception shouldn't apply | Court: exclusionary rule unwarranted; exceptions to Leon inapplicable; good-faith applies |
| Coconspirator statements admissibility | Gov't: recordings contain statements made in furtherance of conspiracy | Romain: statements were idle chatter, not in furtherance | Court: district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous; statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant must be particular)
- United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (supporting documents may justify reasonable officer reliance)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (exclusionary rule aimed at deterrence; limited application)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 (officer may rely on judge-issued warrant)
- United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216 (circumstances where Leon exceptions apply)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule deterrence inquiry)
- United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (overbreadth where items unrelated to charged offense)
- United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785 (standard of review for coconspirator statement findings)
- United States v. Rivera, 22 F.3d 430 (examples of statements in furtherance)
- United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934 (statements informing conspirators about progress/status)
- United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (harmlessness standard for potentially prejudicial evidence)