United States v. Wilson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22212
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- The U.S. appeals a district court suppression order for evidence obtained after a SRMPD stop and subsequent search of Wilson's vehicle near the U.S.–Canada border; one officer was cross-designated as a customs officer by ICE.
- The district court held the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because officers acted without valid authority, outside New York police jurisdiction and without prior ICE authorization.
- On appeal, the government does not contest the jurisdictional and ICE-policy breaches but argues those breaches did not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
- The designation documents and MOA/ICE Directive showed prior authorization was required for customs searches; the district court found the paperwork in order.
- Wilson admitted to past Canada travel and possession of marijuana; officers later obtained ICE authorization to search under designated authority and agents conducted a search that yielded marijuana.
- The First Circuit reversed, holding the ICE authorization breach did not render the stop unconstitutional and that probable cause justified the stop and search; the panel did not decide whether the stop was also a constitutional exercise of New York police authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause justified the stop | Wilson argues stop unsupported by probable cause. | The government contends probable cause existed to stop for federal violations. | Yes; stop justified by probable cause. |
| Whether failure to obtain prior ICE authorization violated the Fourth Amendment | Wilson contends ICE Directive violation invalidates stop. | Government argues agency policy breaches do not implicate Fourth Amendment. | No; ICE policy violation did not render stop unconstitutional. |
| Whether the jurisdictional boundary issue affects Fourth Amendment analysis | Wilson asserts stop outside SRMPD jurisdiction invalidates seizure under state law. | Government asserts Moore/Whren permit disregard of local territorial limits for Fourth Amendment purposes. | Court does not reach/decide this in light of holding on probable cause and ICE policy. |
| Whether the vehicle search was valid under the automobile exception | Suppression argued due to tainted stop. | Probable cause supported a search of the vehicle and its contents. | Search valid under the automobile exception due to probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause justifies a stop; minor regulatory violations generally do not defeat Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Moore v. Virginia, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (state law restrictions do not alter Fourth Amendment protections)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause findings reviewed de novo)
- Ross v. United States, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (scope of warrantless automobile searches defined by probable cause)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (early automobile exception principles)
- Gaskin v. United States, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2004) (probable cause for vehicle search standards in the Second Circuit)
- Navas v. United States, 597 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2010) (scope of automobile searches and containers under probable cause)
- Caceres v. United States, 440 U.S. 741 (U.S. 1979) (guidance on agency regulations not yielding Fourth Amendment protections)
- Felipe v. United States, 148 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1998) (agency regulation violations not suppressive absent constitutional impact)
- Flores-Montano v. United States, 541 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2004) (border-search considerations and probable cause at the border)