United States v. Stegemann
701 F. App'x 35
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- In March–April 2013 Massachusetts and Rensselaer County law enforcement wiretapped eight phones belonging to Joshua Stegemann and conducted five aerial surveillances; surveillance captured a documented oxycodone sale.
- A warrant to search 138 Losty Road (Stegemann’s address) was executed April 30, 2013; officers arrested Stegemann on adjacent property owned by his grandparents (the Foody property).
- Searches of Stegemann’s home and surrounding areas recovered drugs (cocaine, heroin, oxycodone), firearms (loaded shotgun and handguns), digital scales, multiple cell phones, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in envelopes marked “5”; additional cash was found in his sister’s attic safe.
- Stegemann was convicted by jury of possession with intent to distribute multiple drugs (21 U.S.C. § 841), possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)), and possession of firearms/ammunition as a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)).
- On appeal Stegemann challenged (1) warrantless aerial surveillance, (2) alleged statutory deficiencies in the wiretap authorizations under 18 U.S.C. § 2518, (3) whether certain rock-pile locations on the Foody property were within his home’s curtilage, and (4) forfeiture of cash, a vehicle, and bank-account seizures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aerial surveillance warrantless; suppression required | Govt: surveillance permissible / argument waived | Stegemann: aerial footage should be suppressed as warrantless invasion | Waived — district court did not err in treating perfunctory, undeveloped claim as forfeited |
| Wiretap warrants defective under 18 U.S.C. § 2518 | Govt: evidence admissible; even if defects, harmless error | Stegemann: statutory failures required suppression of wiretap-derived evidence | Any statutory error was harmless given overwhelming non-wiretap evidence; probable cause for search stood without wiretaps |
| Curtilage: rock piles on Foody property within home curtilage | Govt: rock piles were on grandparents’ property and were open fields outside curtilage | Stegemann: rock piles were within curtilage and require suppression | Rock piles were open field, not curtilage; district court’s factual finding affirmed |
| Forfeiture of vehicle, cash, bank accounts | Govt: forfeiture proper as proceeds/substitute assets | Stegemann: vehicle and cash not connected to convictions; bank-forfeiture unsupported | Forfeiture of firearms/ammunition AFFIRMED; vehicle and cash REVERSED; bank-account forfeiture VACATED and REMANDED for record development |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Crowley, 236 F.3d 104 (2d Cir.) (district court discretion to enforce procedural rules)
- Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., Inc., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (district courts may enforce local rules)
- United States v. Botti, 711 F.3d 299 (2d Cir.) (perfunctory claims can be waived)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.) (appellate review limitations where issues not adequately raised)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S.) (harmless error framework for non-constitutional errors)
- United States v. Ramirez, 609 F.3d 495 (2d Cir.) (strength of government’s case central to harmless-error inquiry)
- United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir.) (excise tainted evidence and assess remaining probable cause)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (U.S.) (open fields doctrine; curtilage receives home Fourth Amendment protection)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (U.S.) (factors for demarcating curtilage)
- United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55 (2d Cir.) (factors showing firearm connection to drug trafficking)