930 F.3d 44
2d Cir.2019Background
- On Aug. 27, 2015 NYPD plainclothes officers stopped a white rental Nissan driven by Andy Williams for reckless driving; Williams was not an authorized driver on the rental agreement and was arrested.
- Officers conducted an inventory search of the car at the precinct and found gloves, duct tape, a mask, and envelopes addressed to Williams.
- While Williams was being processed he made an agitated phone call saying “come get this car right now,” after which officers returned to the vehicle and conducted a second inventory search; a detective opened the center console (by removing snap‑in paneling) and found a loaded handgun.
- Williams waived Miranda and, after being advised of rights, orally and in writing admitted ownership of the gun and made post‑arrest statements about gang membership and being able to obtain guns/drugs.
- Williams moved to suppress the gun (arguing the second search was an investigatory search), sought to introduce his initial exculpatory denials, and sought exclusion of gang‑related evidence; the district court denied suppression, excluded some exculpatory remarks, admitted the gang statements and Facebook images (the latter objection later held waived).
- Following three trials (two mistrials), a jury convicted Williams under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Williams appealed challenging the suppression ruling, evidentiary exclusions, and admission of gang evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of second search (inventory exception) | Second search was an investigatory/search for evidence, not a permissible inventory search, so handgun should be suppressed | Both searches followed NYPD standardized inventory procedures; officers reasonably rechecked the car after Williams’ phone call; inventory exception applies | Affirmed: second search was a lawful inventory search and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment |
| Admission of Williams’ initial exculpatory post‑arrest denials (completeness / Fifth Amendment) | Exculpatory denials should have been admitted contemporaneously under the rule of completeness and to avoid Fifth Amendment unfairness when the government introduced his confession | The omitted denials were self‑serving and did not explain or render the confession misleading; district court acted within discretion to exclude them | Affirmed: exclusion was not an abuse of discretion; completeness and Fifth Amendment claims fail |
| Admission of post‑arrest gang statements (Rule 404(b) / Rule 403) | Statements and Facebook images were impermissible propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial | Statements were admitted for non‑propensity purposes (to rebut defense theory about ambiguity of confession, and to show intent/opportunity); limiting instruction issued; images admissibility preserved | Affirmed: gang statements admissible under 404(b) for proper purposes and not unfairly prejudicial; limiting instruction appropriate |
| Facebook images (preservation) | Images were improper propensity evidence (on appeal) | Defense made only a delay objection at trial and explicitly declined other objections; issue not preserved | Affirmed: objection was waived at trial; appellate challenge forfeited/waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (inventory searches reasonable without warrant)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches reasonable when administered in good faith according to standard criteria)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches must follow standardized criteria/routine)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the ultimate touchstone; programmatic purpose inquiry)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (community‑caretaking rationale supports inventory/vehicle searches to protect public safety)
- United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir.) (inventory searches under standardized procedures are lawful even if officers expect to find evidence)
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (common‑law rule of completeness survives Rule 106)