United States v. Schirmer Monestime
677 F. App'x 76
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In early 2013 a package from Haiti containing framed paintings with cocaine was intercepted by CBP; HSI arranged a controlled delivery to Elizabeth, NJ using inert fakes and surveillance.
- Lewis agreed to accept the package and later retrieved it; Jacques (co-conspirator) and appellant Monestime were involved in transporting/meeting Lewis the day of delivery.
- After Lewis carried the package to a Bank of America parking lot and signaled a car in which Monestime and Jacques were riding, surveillance observed evasive behavior: Jacques fled from the vehicle; Monestime drove away making multiple turns.
- Agents stopped Monestime, saw a phone in the console missing battery/SIM (alleged counter-surveillance), arrested him, examined recent calls/contacts on the phone, and brought him to HSI; a mistaken photo-array identification issue occurred but was corrected the same day.
- Monestime was indicted for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846; he moved to suppress (challenging stop/arrest and phone search), moved for acquittal/new trial post-verdict, and sought a two-level mitigating-role reduction at sentencing; district court denied all relief and sentenced him to 63 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of stop/arrest & suppression of post-arrest statements/evidence | Monestime: stop/arrest lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause; thus all fruits should be suppressed | Government: agents had reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause based on surveillance, counter-surveillance driving, flight by passenger, and plain-view phone | Court: affirmed—totality of circumstances gave probable cause (and at least reasonable suspicion); suppression denied |
| Legality of warrantless cell-phone search | Monestime: phone search incident to arrest violated Fourth Amendment and should be suppressed | Government: search was consistent with contemporaneous agency practice and in good faith; warrant later obtained (independent source) | Court: affirmed—Riley decided after search; good-faith exception and independent-source doctrine defeat suppression |
| Sufficiency of evidence / fabrication claim (Rule 29 / Rule 33) | Monestime: government fabricated evidence (photo array error) undermines entire case; insufficiency/new trial warranted | Government: credibility and evidence issues were for the jury; error was disclosed and could be weighed at trial | Court: affirmed—reasonable jury could convict; no miscarriage of justice shown |
| Sentencing: mitigating-role reduction under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2(b) | Monestime: was less culpable (similar to Lewis, who received a two-level reduction) and entitled to a minor-role reduction | Government: district court reasonably concluded Monestime was not "substantially less culpable" and rejected his explanations as not credible | Court: affirmed—district court’s denial of reduction not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (warrantless arrest reasonable if probable cause for any offense)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (probable cause standard for arrest is practical and totality-based)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (generally requires warrant for cell-phone searches incident to arrest)
- Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425 (probable cause definition for arrests in Third Circuit)
- United States v. Syme, 276 F.3d 131 (Rule 29 standard—verdict overturned only if no evidence supports conviction)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable suspicion may be based on lawful, innocent-seeming conduct)