United States v. Sease
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21276
6th Cir.2011Background
- Defendant Arthur Sease, a former Memphis police officer, conspired with fellow officers to stage drug buys for personal gain.
- The plan involved using a front person to arrange a drug deal, then Sease or conspirators would arrive in uniform to arrest, seize drugs and cash, and split proceeds without reporting.
- Four Memphis officers and associates were involved; fourteen incidents followed the same general scheme.
- The first incident involved Sease arranging a deal, observing from an unmarked car, and having a uniformed officer arrest the subjects and seize drugs and cash, later distributing the proceeds.
- Sease was indicted in 2008 on 51 counts across multiple statutes, including civil-rights offenses, drug offenses, Hobbs Act offenses, firearms offenses, and money laundering; he was convicted on 44 counts and sentenced to life plus 255 years.
- On appeal, Sease challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the civil-rights and related convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for §241/242 convictions | Sease claims stops did not violate rights; thus no deprivation. | The government’s theory rests on illegal searches; evidence insufficient. | Convictions supported; preservation failed, but no manifest miscarriage. |
| Preservation of sufficiency challenge | Sease properly challenged sufficiency at end of case. | Motion not renewed after rebuttal; preserved only in general terms. | Challenge waived unless manifest miscarriage; convictions affirmed. |
| Applicability of Whren to §242 case | Whren controls; probable-cause-focused analysis negates rights violations. | Whren’s logic should not govern a scheme where stops were premeditated to enable personal gain. | Whren is distinguishable; here, acts were not bona fide law enforcement and involved corrupt intent; §242 satisfied. |
| Effect of non-bona fide stops on other counts | If stops were illegal, other counts relying on seized drugs/money fall. | Probable cause would justify other actions; stops were legitimate. | Because stops were not bona fide law enforcement, other counts (drug, Hobbs Act, firearms) remain supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court, 1996) (probable cause governs legality of stops; subjective motives irrelevant in general)
- Lanier v. United States, 520 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1997) (incorporates constitutional law into § 242; willfulness required)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (Supreme Court, 1987) (objective reasonableness in confronting constitutional questions)
- Robinson v. United States, 414 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court, 1973) (officer motives generally not controlling in stops/arrests; context matters)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (Supreme Court, 2004) (arrest justification need not be closely related to stated reason)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court, 2006) (emergency-aid doctrine; reasonableness constraints on searches)
- Jackson v. Parker, 627 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency review; constitutional rights violations impact on liability)
- Ostrander, 411 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2005) (Hobbs Act considerations in drug contexts (cited for proximity to conviction standards))