United States v. Seth Morgan
659 F. App'x 444
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Seth Morgan, a probationer, was arrested and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He appealed.
- A Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) officer, Lee, conducted a warrantless search of a Pontiac in which Morgan was found; police cooperated but Lee authorized and directed the search.
- Items linking Morgan to the car and drugs (backpack in trunk, keys, repeated trips, sitting in driver’s seat, car parked at his apartment, car formerly owned by a known narcotics associate) were discovered.
- Morgan argued the search was unlawful because Lee acted as an agent of law enforcement, the probation condition did not authorize searching a car he only possessed (not owned), and Arizona v. Gant barred the post-arrest search.
- Morgan also argued he did not unequivocally waive his right to counsel when he elected to proceed pro se rather than continue with appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Morgan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless search by DOC officer acting as agent of police | Search invalid because Lee acted as law enforcement agent to circumvent Fourth Amendment | Search was authorized under probation condition; Knights permits probationary searches supported by reasonable suspicion | Search lawful under Knights; cooperation with police did not make Lee an agent of law enforcement |
| Scope of probation condition as to "my automobile" | Condition didn’t authorize search of a car he possessed but did not own | "My automobile" covers vehicles under probationer’s control/possession; facts showed Morgan in possession | Condition covered the Pontiac; possession (keys, use, location) sufficed |
| Applicability of Arizona v. Gant (search incident to arrest) | Gant prohibits vehicle search after Morgan was in custody | Search was justified by probationary-search doctrine (Knights), not Gant’s search-incident rule | Gant inapplicable; Knights/probationary search doctrine governs |
| Waiver of right to counsel / request to proceed pro se | Request conditional and thus not an unequivocal waiver; sought new counsel instead | Morgan expressly chose to proceed pro se rather than continue with existing counsel; waiver was clear | District court did not clearly err: waiver was unequivocal and valid |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (warrantless probation searches reasonable with reasonable suspicion and authorized probation condition)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- United States v. Stokes, 292 F.3d 964 (Knights overruled prior line limiting probation searches)
- Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441 (conditional requests to proceed pro se can be unequivocal)
- United States v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 614 (conditional self-representation request not necessarily equivocal)
- United States v. Ferguson, 560 F.3d 1060 (recognition of Edwards implications)
- United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935 (review standard for equivocal waiver findings)
- Jackson v. Ylst, 921 F.2d 882 (context for impulsive waiver arguments)
- State v. Reichert, 242 P.3d 44 (DOC officer may search after police tip without violating Fourth Amendment)