United States v. Harold Evan Grant

GUY, Circuit Before KEITH CELEBREZZE, Judges, Senior Judge. Circuit KEITH, Judge. Circuit (“Grant”) Defendant Harold Evan intent to with possession charged kilogram phencycli- over one distribute of 21 U.S.C. (“POP”), in violation dine (the 841(a)(1). The United § “Government”) the district appeals from suppressing order court’s March 3731; evidence,1 to 18 U.S.C. pursuant § releasing 8,1990 order March and its For bail, 18 U.S.C. 3145. pursuant § below, AFFIRM. we stated the reasons March superceded revised its ruled from the the district 1. On March order, subject of granted Evan which is the defendant Harold memorandum bench suppress The dis- evidence. appeal. Grant's motion ruling was March 1990 bench trict court’s already deplaned and waiting were gate area. After determining that the passengers aliens, two illegal January Based onthe suppres- I. A. begin re-boarded the aircraft testimony hearing sion of Border Patrol process questioning persons all Agent (“Agent Buechner Donald Buech- they thought who might be aliens. The ner”); Agent Patrol Jeffery Border Cou- questioning process went as follows: the Coudure”) (“Agent dure (collectively “the agents identified themselves as Border LaGrone, agents”); Roger supervisor a' for agents; they Patrol passen- asked the Airlines Airport Northwest at LaGuardia in gers they where came from and their (“LaGrone”); City New York Albert Sorn- destination; they and then asked each berger, an officer with New York Port passenger to produce immigration doc- Authority Airport at stationed LaGuardia uments. agents The described them- (“Officer Sornberger”); Larry Cornish, selves as jeans. dressed in They Levi’s Deputy Wayne County (“Deputy Sheriff gave no why they reason were not in Cornish”), the district court made the fol- despite uniform they fact that lowing findings of fact: conducting activity traditionally con- agents regularly Border Patrol check ducted uniformed Border Patrol early morning flights arriving at Detroit agents. Metropolitan Airport from the Southwest beginning At the sweep of their through drug aliens, for illegal traffickers and for plane, agents observed Grant flights because those are not checked in asleep at the plane. They back agents their cities of The origin. check begin sweep decided to by question passengers deplane both who those ing Grant because of his [dreadlocks] According in transit. to their testimony, hairstyle,[2]which indicated that might he agents regularly question everyone origin. According Jamaican who remains on such flight, seated Buechner, they approached him first regardless of whether or not there is an “just to be on the safe side.” One of the articulable agents tapped Grant on the shoulder and person illegal is an alien. identified patrol himself as a Border On approximately November at 6:00 agent. He asked Grant where he was AM, patrol there were Border agents two coming from. responded, He Ange- “Los [Agent Agent Buechner and Coudure] agent les.” The asked where Grant was present Metropolitan at the Detroit Air- responded, born. He “Belize.” The port flight to check Northwest Airlines agent asked long Grant how he had been flight originated domestic in the United responded, States. He “Six Angeles pro- Los and was scheduled to years.” agent The asked Grant ceed on from Detroit to New York City. immigration documents, “green or card.” Flight approximately arrived responded He it carry-on that was depart AM and was scheduled to at ap- bag. He then retrieved carry-on bag proximately arriving passen- 7 AM. The produced card. agent The saw gers deplaned before Border Patrol nothing suspicious in the card other than agents gate. reached the might that it forgery, abe because agent said he occasionally gate When the at the arrived encountered forged green AM, Nothing cards. approximately 6:30 on the face boarded the presented agent document plane through to the and walked it once without suggested that forgery. it was a questioning anyone. They then left the question passengers two agent sus- observed that Grant was shak- pected being illegal aliens who ing as he green handed card over hairstyle Rastafarians, long 2. The dreadlocks features hair members of a black Jamaican reli- clumps. that has been matted or braided into gious group worship who Haile Selassie. See University See Webster'sII New Riverside Dictio- id. at 975. nary are often Dreadlocks worn questioning questioning, ond round of agent him. While Grant, air- he stood the aisle of the asked to leave the aircraft. He agent stood agreed next to him. Another craft to do so. A law enforcement away.

one row third point, At this the aircraft was five to ten officer, Deputy County Sheriff Wayne away depar- its minutes from scheduled Cornish, positioned at nose of agent ture from Detroit. As the de- the aircraft. planed flight he told the at- name on a agent looked for Grant’s passenger might tendant or one flight ob- manifest for passenger might return to the aircraft. How- Airlines, and tained from Northwest ever, he did not ask aircraft be agents sometimes could not find it. The held until a made. determination was manifests, they if passenger make use of Nor did he tell a choice Grant that he had However, nothing there is are available. as to whether to de- or he wanted the mani- suggest in record to the plane. of all accurately reflect the names fests Grant was taken to an area where all of The passengers on the aircraft. the the other aliens who had been taken off he was agent then asked Grant where sitting. the and arrested He going he to going. said that was Grant placed was in a row himself. The York, Kennedy Airport in New F. John agent go then if asked could to actually headed while the aircraft was through carry-on bag. his He consented. LaGuardia. search, In the course of that the for his tick- agent The then asked Grant quantity marijuana. discovered a small ticket was his He said that the et. Grant was then arrested for state law agent luggage. This made the checked offense, custody in the but he remained However, the suspicious. court] [district agent then of the Border Patrol. The the fact that a judicial notice of takes body a full search incident to conducted necessary a North- is not to board ticket the arrest. check-in, At flight. Airlines west search, agent During that discovered agent the ticket from airline removes baggage claim ticket. Grant denied leaving package, passenger’s ticket then contact- agent that it was his. The copy. The airline passenger with a Airlines at LaGuardia and ed Northwest original ticket agent places the bag. retrieve the Grant asked them to original boarding pass. The passenger’s lock-up of the to the Detroit was taken boarding pass when from the is removed time, ad- At that Grant Border Patrol. plane. passenger boards belonged check luggage mitted not have learning that Grant did After initially denied him and said that he to ticket, to look agent asked Grant he was nervous ownership because looked carry-on bag. in his for it acknowledgement of sleepy. Grant’s up briefly then stood bag ownership occurred between 7:30 mid- a location in the forward to walked The aircraft did not arrive 7:45 AM. side, taking on the left dle of the aircraft until 8:30 AM. New York agent bag him. The carry-on LaGuardia, supervisor At a Northwest him that he still and told followed Grant lug- immediately set out to retrieve Grant said he to see his ticket. needed bag retrieved and found agent gage. left was for it. The look x-ray in an placed It was passengers. other to be locked. question manager by Northwest service machine aircraft, the front of the Working from LaGrone, it con- determined who agent worked from the other while metal cans. He gasoline-type tained two agents pro- rear, Patrol the two Border bag without ascer- to return the refused from the passengers ceeded to remove He the cans. taining the contents of who flight. They then returned to Grant Authority New York Port contacted the asleep. They woke appeared to be again bag to United sec- who took inception of this again. him At Authority Customs. Port Police Officer charged in a one-count Sornberger had contacted an assistant possession indictment for with intent Attorney in Detroit who distribute one kilogram PCP, in violation told him that he needed a search warrant of 21 841(a)(1). § U.S.C. open bag. suggested She having On December Grant filed a bag drug-detection sniffed ca- suppress motion to the evidence obtained at nine. dog When the did not alert to the the time of his arrest. argued presence of drugs, Sornberger [Officer] his fourth rights amendment were violated had no choice but to return the bag to search and seizure of his Northwest. Sornberger testi- [Officer] person at the Metropolitan Detroit Airport that, fied time, at that he had no reason and the subsequent warrantless bag believe that the contained contra- luggage in New York. The district band. court referred the suppress motion to to a Sornberger and a customs [Officer] magistrate, who suppression held a hearing agent bag Northwest, returned the on January 1990. January On where LaGrone still refused to return it after hearing testimony from the Govern- to Detroit until he had determined what witnesses, ment’s magistrate ruled that bag inside it. opened then though even Grant was scheduled to travel by the presence in of La- Angeles Los York, to New Grone. LaGrone bag testified that the voluntarily left airplane in Detroit and opened at his directive. [Officer] voluntarily consented to a search of his Sornberger confirmed this version of the carry-on bag leaving after airplane. events; however, he noted that neither magistrate concluded, however, that agent he nor the customs had mentioned Grant’s fourth rights amendment were vio- the discussion he had with the Assistant lated the warrantless search of lug- Attorney United States in Detroit about gage Thus, in New York. the magistrate needing a search warrant bag before the recommended that the suppress motion to opened. could be granted. When the cans removed from the bag, they lacquer-thinner. smelled of 14, February 1990, On hearing after personnel put Northwest them in a stor- cross-objections magistrate’s report age area controlled Northwest and recommendation, and the district court bag then returned the to Detroit without granted the suppress motion to ruling in a the cans. LaGrone testified further that from the bench. Grant then moved the if up Grant had with the baggage shown district court for magistrate’s review of the ticket, claim the cans would have been 21, November 1989 detention order. later, returned to him. Sometime other Grant’s motion abeyance held in after Authority Port officers returned and moved, the Government February 16, on again smelled the cans and determined 1990, for reconsideration the motion to ether. contained The cans suppress. were then for testing seized because Ruling from 8, 1990, bench on March PCP can in be contained an ether base. the district court denied the Government’s Drug Agency Enforcement [“DEA”] motion reconsideration, and ordered the was called to test the substance in the suppressed, evidence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. testing cans. Laboratory revealed that 3731. The court also set § conditions for the cans contained PCP. bond, release of Grant on pursuant Grant, 797, F.Supp. United States v. 3145, 18 U.S.C. but delayed § Grant’s re- (E.D.Mich.1990) (footnote 799-801 added). lease to allow the Government an opportu- nity to suppression review the order.

B. 19, 21, Grant was on 1990, arrested November On March the district court 1989, by magistrate’s and detained No- entered a memorandum and order su- vember On November perceding revising order. and its March (footnote Grant, F.Supp. at 802-03 reviewing the facts ruling. After bench omitted). court the district precedents, relevant an actions constituted held again the district court April On person: of Grant’s illegal seizure 1990; April until release stayed Grant’s passenger that, like finds Court opportu- [T]he thus, allowing the Government Grey- aof cramped interior in the seated in court. nity review to seek cramped Grant, bus, seated hound Grant, April 803. On F.Supp. at aircraft, confronted of an quarters rear the Government’s this court denied ve- boarded officer who police pending ap- release stay motion to questions began to ask hicle pellate review. would papers, review identification 10, 1990) Apr. No. 90-1397/1398 Cir. Indeed, the away. free to walk feel stay (order denying motion to defendant’s away. did walk finds that Grant Court release). rea- agent, without the Border Patrol Yet filed a the Government April On inquiry in his persisted suspicion, sonable court, seeking ap- timely appeal with this a reasonable where circumstances under March court’s of the district pellate review would not position person in Grant’s evidence, and suppressing 1990 order place go any that he felt —because releasing order March its New York—and travelling on to he was bail. seat to sit forced have been appeal are: whether questions. Under The issues on the agents answer circumstances, finding that Grant finds erred the Court district court those involuntarily by the impermissibly seized left the aircraft consequence, As a court erred Detroit; (2) coercion. the district under whether or seizure imper- subsequent luggage conversation any finding that Grant’s in involuntary York; Grant was from and of evidence in New missibly searched Fourth Amendment and violated his in releas- erred district court the whether rights. on bail. ing Grant (footnote omit- F.Supp. at 802 734 ted). II. the held next court The district protects “the amendment The fourth York luggage in New of Grant’s

search in their people to be secure right of City illegal: houses, effects papers, persons, York bag in New The search Grant’s and sei- searches against unreasonable his Fourth Amendment violated City also Const, zures_” amend. IV. search, the of the At the time rights. a traditional involves seizure Whether directing the search agents in Detroit detention, stop and a arrest, or a brief luggage be- fully aware requires law frisk, fourth amendment own- that he claimed longed to Grant actions base their enforcement simply fatuous in it. It is ership interest Reid v. justifications. See objective on does, suggest, as the [GJovernment 2752, 440, 438, 100 S.Ct. Georgia, 448 U.S. bag by the offi- of the opening Ohio, (1980); Terry v. 2753, 890 65 L.Ed.2d di- at the City was in New York cers 1877-78, 1868, 1, 16-19, 88 S.Ct. 392 U.S. of Northwest supervisor rection (1968). 889 20 L.Ed.2d City in New York The officers Airlines. has been sub- a citizen finding that open could before been told that or search amendment to a fourth jected necessary for them bag, it was and can- of fact question seizure involves a search [GJovern- obtain warrant. clearly erroneous. unless not be reversed opening the blame ment cannot shift 1490, Rose, F.2d States See United supervisor un- bag Northwest Cir.1989). also United (6th See Consequent- circumstances.... der the (4th 320, 322 883 F.2d Gray, the States in search anything obtained ly, the constitutionali- Cir.1989). To determine suppressed. bag must be ty of seizure, a search or will we judge the district court’s conclusion Grant upon each case its own facts. United was seized in Detroit. A fourth amend Mendenhall, 544, 446 U.S. 565 n. ment seizure occurred because the 6, 1870, 6, 100 S.Ct. 1877 n. 64 L.Ed.2d 497 exercised their authority ain manner which (1980) (Powell, J., concurring); United made it apparent to Grant that he was “not Clardy, States v. (6th 819 F.2d ignore free to proceed on officers] Cir.1987). airport In each encounter be- way.” Black, United States v. tween citizen, officer and a “there (7th Cir.1982), denied, cert. bewill in endless variations the facts 460 U.S. 103 S.Ct. 75 L.Ed.2d circumstances, so much variation it is (1983). Grant did “freely and vol unlikely that can courts reduce to a untarily” consent to being interrogated by sentence a paragraph or a rule that will the agents aboard the airplane; nor did he provide unarguable ques- answers “freely and voluntarily” consent to leave tion whether there has been an unreason- agents. Bumper v. able or seizure violation of the Carolina, North 543, 548, 391 U.S. 88 S.Ct. Fourth Amendment.” Royer, Florida v. (1968). L.Ed.2d 797 See also 491, 506-07, 460 U.S. 1319, 1329, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, (1983) (White, J., plurality 36 L.Ed.2d 854 opinion). consideration

A. A of the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that Grant To determine whether the agents seized was a victim of police coercion. The violation of the fourth amend began their sweep of airplane by tap ment, we initially must decide whether ping shoulder; waking him seized. This court’s traditional sleep; initiating interroga light test asks: all of the circum tion. “physical This touching of the person stances, “a person ... citizen,” while not sup controlling, that he or believed she was not free to ports finding that Grant was seized. See United away.” walk Saper States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at stein, Cir.1983); 1875. Because agents twice awakened Clardy, 819 F.2d at 672. Grant from sleep; his demanded that he In considering whether police-citi a produce green card; and continued the airport zen encounter a constitutes seizure interrogation even after produced Grant or a encounter, consensual the federal the immigration document, agent’s courts have often focused three factors: threatening, intrusive and coercive behav (1) the police, conduct of the United States ior indicates that a seizure occurred. See Garcia, v. (6th Cir.1989); 866 F.2d 150 id.; Clardy, 672; 819 F.2d at Jefferson, Knox, United States v. 839 F.2d 289- 650 F.2d at 856. The Government argues (6th Cir.1988), denied, 90 cert. that agents were not threatening be 104 L.Ed.2d 179 cause they were plainclothes dressed in and (1989); (2) the particu characteristics of a did display weapons. their A reason defendant, lar Patino, United States v. 649 person, able however, “would not believe (9th F.2d Cir.1981); 727 United States police that a officer is not armed.” United Andrews, v. (6th 600 F.2d 566 Cir. Fields, States v. (D.D.C. 733 F.Supp. 7 1979); physical surroundings of 1990) (finding impermissible seizure of bus encounter, Clardy, 672; 819 F.2d at passenger by police wearing plain United Jefferson, States v. 650 F.2d clothes). addition, In the removal of 55 (6th Cir.1981). 858 generally See United alleged illegal aliens from the airplane by v. Gray, States (4th 883 F.2d 323 three law enforcement officers —the two Cir.1989) (positing test). three-part agents Deputy Cornish in uniform— bar, the case at the conduct supports of a finding that there was a suffi Deputy Cornish evidences cient authority show of persuade to

383 impermissi- police officers had found ignore to that not free he was 672; passenger a bus when bly seized Clardy, 819 F.2d requests. See standing up leaving him from Lucci, 155 blocked 758 F.2d v. United States 856; asking for consent to prior the bus Cir.1985); F.2d at (6th Jefferson, 650 bag: search Fields, 7. F.Supp. at officers, by the there approached [OJnce the second consideration Our go place no for the defendant unique characteristics— factor—Grant’s on the bus. The circumstances to remain have a he did not consen us that persuades ‘encounter’ are much different from the agents. In United with the sual encounter station, place a which within bus takes Patino, F.2d 724 Cir. v. States Winston, v. see United dis affirmed the 1981), Circuit the Ninth (D.C.Cir.1989) the citizen ... where had finding the defendant court’s trict away. The defendant here had can walk requested an police when the been seized bus, place go except step off the no 728-29. Patino id. at interview. See so, thereby assuming he felt free to do the defendant explained court might leave running the risk that the bus understanding English and that problems the situation is him. Moreover without may have felt an alien “she was who on a train different than an ‘encounter’ request compulsion to abide greater walking option where citizen has Similarly, at 727. police.” Id. actually leaving car without into another Belize, Spanish- and raised born Savage, the train. See United States Due American nation. speaking, Central (D.C.Cir.1989); 889 F.2d practices ignorance police to his Baskin, (D.C.Cir. F.2d 383 States v. alien, as an and his status United States 1989); Brady, compelled to likely felt answer most (D.C.Cir.1988). and to submit to agents’ questions Fields, F.Supp. at 7. Fields Considering the coer See id. demands. “bus-stop” rose to that this court concluded both employed tactics cive in violation of level of a seizure airport, we aboard because, under the cir- fourth amendment reasonably did not be conclude that Grant cumstances, man would not a reasonable away. free to walk himself lieve ignore the officers or felt free to factor, courts have Applying the third bag. to their refuse consent particu- setting of a physical looked States v. 7. also United id. at See to determine police-citizen lar encounter (D.D.C.1990) Cothran, F.Supp sei- constituted a the encounter whether oc- impermissible seizure (finding Felder, 732 In United States zure. officer, acting without curred when (D.D.C.1990), the district court F.Supp. 204 in- bus to suspicion, entered particularized randomly practice of police the found passengers); terrogate and search bus passengers, Greyhound bus approaching Lewis, F.Supp. 784 v. 728 suspicion, purposes articulable without (same). (D.D.C.1990) conducting vio- and searches questioning in Felder passengers the bus at 208. Like Id. fourth amendment. lated the away Fields, not walk could Grant that because court concluded The Felder began to inter agents when de- from the effectively confined police officers the if Grant plane. Even on the rogate him interrogation seat for to his fendant leave the to bus, he remained free offi- felt that the the could not leave defendant himself from not distance he could plane, the in violation of defendant seized cers plane that the risking Thus, agents the without sub- defendant’s amendment. fourth reboard. he could off before of would take to the officers’ sequent consent impermis to an has declined find This taint the court the bag did not overcome police where in several cases at sible seizure id. 208-09. seizure. See impermissible public citizens approached Fields, 733 officers Moreover, v. States United Garcia, See, 866 e.g., airport. (D.D.C.1990), areas an the district court F.Supp. 4 384 151; Collis, F.2d at fly 766 to York, Detroit to New would not (6th Cir.), denied, cert. F.2d 219 474 U.S. voluntarily deplane in Detroit moments be- 106 S.Ct. 88 (1985); L.Ed.2d 124 fore take-off. Grant did have a “casual Moore, United States v. 807- contact” with agents; the a seizure also (6th Cir.1982). 08 situation, how occurred when the agents required Grant ever, was decidedly different. ap Citizens deplane to and to accompany them to the proached in airport concourse retain the airport Detroit place concourse —“a to freedom away to from the officers; walk which planned had not to [Grant] go.” approached Grant the agents after Garcia, 866 F.2d at (“[T]he one occur-

boarding place go and had no to to rence which seems distinguish ‘seizures’ plane.3 remain on the from casual contacts police between After interrogation his initial citizens is when the defendant asked agents, Grant option— accompany police exercised his one agents or place ato changing agents persisted which seats —but planned defendant had not by awakening go.”). Grant his new seat and initiating a second interrogation. Under totality of the circumstances, a reason- B. person able would not have felt “free to Having established that Grant was and, away” thus, walk point, at this Grant seized, our next inquiry is whether Saperstein, was seized. 723 F.2d at seizure was constitutionally permissible. Clardy, See also 1225. 672. It long has been police held that a officer Although the Government contends that may briefly detain a citizen for questioning voluntarily consented to questioning even if the officer probable does not agents, reject we the Government’s cause to believe that the citizen is involved grounds contention on the that by changing See, criminal activity. e.g., Terry, airplane, seats aboard clearly U.S. at 88 S.Ct. at expressed 1884. The his desire officer to terminate must, however, “have a suspi reasonable interrogation. See Schneckloth v. cion,

Bustamonte, objective facts, based on U.S. indi 2041, 2047, vidual is involved in criminal (1973) (“[Volun- activity.” L.Ed.2d 854 Texas, Brown 47, 51, question is a of fact to be deter- S.Ct. tariness] (1979). mined from totality of all L.Ed.2d 357 See U.S. the circum- Sokolow, stances.”). 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. 1581 at 1585, 104 (1989); Terry, 392 U.S. reject We must also Government’s 88 S.Ct. at 1884. argument voluntarily consented to leave agents. A A generalized officer’s hunch or person, ticketed and scheduled activity criminal will not be argues 3. The gov- Government that this case is twice awakened in the middle of night; by Immigration erned interrogated; Ser- Naturalization required produce twice Delgado, vice v. immigration Thus, documents. Grant’s “en- disagree. L.Ed.2d Delgado, We In counter" with the ing, was far more threaten- raids, Supreme Court held that INS in which addition, intrusice and coercive. exits, factory armed all blocked did not Delgado workers retained the freedom to move constitute fourth amendment seizures of the en- factory. movements, around the Grant’s how- 218-19, ever, tire workforces. Id. at 104 S.Ct. at agents' request, were at the as he had no explained 1763-64. The plaintiffs Court that place go the leaving else to plane. without the had not been seized because had consensu- When Grant relocated to a new seat on the agents al encounters INS plane tion, the work- to terminate interroga- first forces had not been seized agents because the workers followed him to his new seat generally were factory. to move free about and initiated a interrogation. second round of 218, 221, 1763, See at id. 104 S.Ct. at Delgado, 1765. In required were not workers to agents encounter with the factory. 221, on leave the See at id. 104 S.Ct. at comparable is not case, to the however, workers present encounters In the agents 1765. agents with INS in the required off, factories. deplane The workers Grant to moments before take- approached during day presence seizing thus Grant in violation of the fourth Grant, alone, of their traveling co-workers. was amendment.

385 to consideration. citi- was sufficient warrant of a the detention justify to sufficient Miami, Honolulu to trip at a from at While 392 U.S. Terry, See zen. alone, any recognized in is not a cause for standing Supreme Court As the 1884. Sokolow, 109 more: suspicion, 490 U.S. there was v. sort of here (1989): 1 of Honolulu travel surely 104 L.Ed.2d few residents S.Ct. spend city 20 hours to from that for requires “some Amendment The Fourth July. during the month of justification” hours in Miami objective level of minimal Delgado, making stop. INS for totality of Considering “the at 1586. Id. 1758, 80 S.Ct. 466 U.S. [104 picture,” the whole the circumstances—the suspi- of (1984). level That L.Ed.2d 247] factors, taken to- that Court found these proof of than considerably less cion suspicion to reasonable gether, amounted of the preponderance a wrongdoing agents’ detention of the justified the which probable held that We have evidence. (quoting United suspect. id. at 1585 See that con- probability fair means “a cause 411, 417, Cortez, States v. a crime will of or evidence traband (1981)). S.Ct. Gates, found,” Illinois bar, relies Government In the case at L.Ed.2d 527] S.Ct. [103 agents had argue that the on Sokolow required (1983), level both suspicion to detain Grant reasonable obviously less de- stop is Terry for a seat and following him to a new probable cause. that for manding than take-off. deplane prior to him to requiring Her- Montoya de See inapposite are Because facts Sokolow’s S.Ct. nandez, 473 U.S. [105 case, find we do not present those of 87 L.Ed.2d 381] per- argument to be the Government’s Sokolow, 1585. suasive. that DEA Sokolow, held the Court ignores the les- Initially, the Government suspicion to make agents had finding a of reason- son of Sokolow drug suspected stop of a investigative an isolated rest not on suspicion must able Air- International Honolulu courier facts, totality of the circum- upon the The Government at 1587. id. port. See agents time id. At stances. See reasonable sus- agents had argued that the suspicion that he their approached (1) he suspect because: stop the picion large- activity in criminal was engaged was from $2,100 airplane tickets two for paid of him observation ly brief based bills; (2) under a he traveled of $20 roll plane. they had boarded after the name under not match did which name that Grant evidence no advance had listed; (3) number was telephone his which drug courier. illegal alien nor was hours, only Miami even stayed in he Sokolow, there was suspect Unlike the round-trip flight from Honolulu though a purchased his had that Grant no evidence hours; (4) original takes Miami laundered bills with small plane ticket Miami, city a source was destination sales; no evidence there drug (5) nervous dur- appeared he drugs; illicit trip to “drop-off” making a brief none he checked trip; ing the a one- purchased had as Grant New York The Court at 1583. id. luggage. See ticket; no evidence way and there “pro- three factors first found he as traveling under an alias Grant was significance”: bative id. green card. readily produced airplane $2,100 in for two cash Paying engag- 1586. observed ordinary, and it is is out tickets activity sleep- nighttime prevalent ing pay ordinary to — more even out conduct does observing ing containing bills $20 roll sum from a —and police officers experienced usually lead of cash.... that amount nearly twice activity afoot. that criminal believe agents had reason- We also think 28-29, 88 S.Ct. at Terry, 392 U.S. Compare respondent ground to believe able agents awakened After the alias; at 1883-84. the evi- traveling under an him, Grant’s questioning began conclusive, it Grant and by no means dence was responses were not indicative of criminal could justify a seizure.” Id. at activity. gave direct answers to the S.Ct. at 2754. agents’ questions as to his immigration The Government next contends that the Belize, from immigration status, his and agents reasonably suspected Grant because the origin flight. of the aspects These displayed he nervousness; had shaking Grant’s conduct clearly were insufficient to hands; and misstated the destination of his provide suspicion reasonable he flight as New York’s John F. Kennedy engaged in activity. criminal Airport, when it was actually going to La- Airport. Guardia We are unpersuaded by argues Government that the contentions, Government’s as Grant’s had suspicion reasonable to detain Grant alleged nervousness inability to cor because knew that he had embarked rectly identify flight may destination Angeles, Los city a source for drug simply been due to the fact that the couriers, and that he had boarded flight agents awoke interrogated him in the which left at a time police when middle of Moreover, the night. “[njervous checking not boarding passengers. ness is entirely consistent with innocent Initially, nothing there is in the record to behavior, especially at an airport where a show that any Grant nor member of the may traveller anticipating be a long-await general public knew would ed rendezvous with family.” friends or boarding monitor the flight of the in Andrews, 600 F.2d at 566. Saper See also Angeles. addition, Los this Court has stein, 123 F.2d at 1228 (deeming certain previously held that “travel from Los An- characteristics, behavior such as nervous geles cannot be regarded any as in way ness, to be inherently unsuspicious). suspicious.” Andrews, United States v. The Government argues also Cir.1979)(“[0]ur 566-67 agents had reasonable to detain experience with agent DEA testimony in Grant because produce he did not plane other cases makes us wonder whether at request. ticket The Government’s any city there exists in the country which a argument, however, cannot survive the DEA agent will not characterize as either a analysis of do Reid: the facts justifying major narcotics distribution center or a city seizure apply very to “a large category through drug which pass couriers on their of innocent travelers” potentially sub- way major to a narcotics distribution cen- ject them to “virtually random seizures?” ter.”). Sokolow, See also S.Ct. 1586 Reid, 448 U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at 2754. (suggesting trip that a from Honolulu to agent When the ticket, asked Grant for his Miami, drug “a city, source is not a cause Grant offered the plausible explanation for sort of any Moreover, suspicion”). placed he it in his lug- checked Georgia, Reid v. 448 100 S.Ct. gage. noted, As the district court airplane (1980), L.Ed.2d Supreme travelers often boarding pass receive a Court very invalidated the criteria at issue required which is to the admission (1) here. The Court suspect’s held that plane and a copy original ticket arrival at the airport “drug Atlanta from a which is required. Grant, not so city source” inadequate support a F.Supp. at 800. The district court also finding suspicion; found that purchased because Grant had suspect’s early arrival morning, one-way ticket, pressing he had no need to when activity law enforcement is diminish- carry the copy ticket with him nor even to ed, justify would not also a finding of rea- retain the copy ticket at all. id. Con- See suspicion. 440-41, sonable id. trary to the view, Government’s S.Ct. at 2753-54. The Court concluded that could not have determined whether Grant these very large facts “describe a category had retained boarding pass for admis- presumably travelers, innocent who to the sion placed ticket copy subject virtually sei- random luggage checking it before at the zures were the Court to conclude that as Moreover, airline reservation counter. little as foundation there was in this case may have placed his copy ticket in a unnecessary then asked airline the ticket that was for Grant carry-on bag, but was carry-on retain, gate merely leap to check the to made an inferential personnel at the boarding. bag immediately prior to Since traveling to the conclusion that Grant was carry-on reject bags personnel airline often under an alias and involved in criminal ac- limitations, gate space due tivity. Because the conclusion was was not unreasonable. explanation facts, not based on articulable we cannot Gates, 462 243-44 Illinois v. U.S. suspicion. find reasonable Cf. 2335 n. L.Ed.2d n. 103 S.Ct. argues The Government also that (1983) (“In making a determination of agents justified detaining were inquiry relevant is not probable cause the Belize; originally because he was from is ‘innocent’ or particular whether conduct photo- appearance differed from the degree of that ‘guilty,’ but However, graph immigration card. types of noncriminal particular attaches to significance origin national of Grant’s acts.”). evaporated produced as he as soon is the Govern- Equally unpersuasive Moreover, green card. there was no indica- argument the detention was ment’s that immigration tion on the card that the infor- name did justified by the fact that Grant’s orally provided mation Grant had manifest. The flight on the appear not The district court was inaccurate. evi- that there was no district court found “[njothing that on the face of also found flight mani- in the record that dence agent sug- presented the document to the names of all accurately reflect the fests Grant, gested forgery.” it that was Grant, 734 an aircraft. passengers on addition, F.Supp. at 800. the Govern- example, it is F.Supp. at 800. For fact argument ment’s is rebutted purchase airplane parents uncommon many travelers” that there are "innocent name for their chil- in their own tickets airlines were born in upon our nation’s who traveling to and from col- when drens’ use countries, nonetheless, foreign have es- Moreover, many large corpora- lege. residency citizenship in legal or tablished tions, governmental firms and professional Reid, 448 U.S. at the United States. See trips make agencies, employees business at 2754. bearing the names of tickets using airline argued has Although the Government and/or co- supervisors, subordinates he was was detained because such as emergencies, to minor due workers immigration documents from Belize and illness, may require last- which employee court found questionable, the district changes given on a personnel busi- minute originally decided Sokolow, at 1586 trip. ness Cf. observed question Grant because stop by validity investigative (analyzing hairstyle suspect he wore a dreadlocks who often comparing business travelers Grant, 734 might Jamaican. ed that he money plastic airline tickets with purchase criteria were at 799. These initial F.Supp. airline purchase often drug couriers who justify stop. clearly inappropriate to cash). Additionally, the case tickets with (6th F.2d 1402 Taylor, 917 States v. distinguished from easily be can at bar Cir.1990) police officers’ ob (holding that in- objective there were where those cases suspect, Taylor, a black walk servations of traveling suspect dications quickly through the air ing nervously and Mendenhall, See, e.g., alias. under an insufficient to racially-biased and port were (declining to 100 S.Ct. at 1873 U.S. seizure); Ramirez justify a search and suspect seizure where find an unlawful (W.D.Mich.1984) Webb, F.Supp. license with a name a driver’s produced not a (“[ appearance ... H]ispanic airline tick- the name on her from different stop anyone.”), aff'd, reason to valid et). how- agents questioning Cir.1986). F.2d 592 ever, objective evidence did not Cf. 886-87, Brignoni-Ponce, way any dishonest. 2574, 2582-83, acquire requi- 95 S.Ct. having failed to agents, (1975)(“Large numbers of native-born flight manifest or site information 388 physical

naturalized citizens have the char- C. acteristics identified with Mexican ances- Because Grant was improperly try, even in the border area a relative- [but] by seized the agents, subsequent con ly proportion aliens.”). of them small are sent to the his carry-on bag did not overcome taint of agents’ prior initially Prior to questioning conduct. See Clardy, 673; 819 F.2d at agents only had two indicia of suspicion: United States v. Maragh, 415, 894 F.2d (1) racially-biased their own assumption (D.C.Cir.1990). 419-20 “primary taint was a man because Grant of color of the unlawful may only invasion” dreadlocks, wearing he must have been an purged suspect’s when the subsequent con illegal Jamaica; (2) alien from is product sent “the of an intervening act long-discredited drug city source rationale of free will.” Wong States, Sun v. United that because Grant had embarked from Los 83 S.Ct. Angeles, he must been drug courier. (1963). Since such an interven Andrews, See 566-67 (rejecting F.2d ing present event was case, not in this “drug rationale). city” source See also Grant’s consent to the search bag of his did United Buenaventura-Ariza, States v. not remove prior taint of his unconsti (2d Cir.1979); 615 F.2d by tutional agents. seizure McCaleb, 552 F.2d Although the argues Government Cir.1977); Scott, United States v. willingly search, consented to the we (8th Cir.1976), denied, 40 n. cert. 429 conclude, based totality on the of the cir- U.S. 50 L.Ed.2d 784 cumstances, that Grant’s consent was not facts, On these hardly we can find voluntary. Schneckloth, See 412 U.S. at upon particularized acted 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2047. search, Prior to the suspicion. Moreover, we cannot conclude Grant had been twice awakened race, that Grant’s ethnic identity or Los agents in the middle of the night; required Angeles flight-origin furnished reasonable produce plane immigration ticket and grounds for the to believe that he documents; interrogated twice even an illegal alien or a drug courier. If though he changed seats to termi- agents’ approach in this case became nate the first interrogation; and subse- prevalent among quently law enforcement required deplane in Detroit from nation, many across the New Hispanic flight. black or York bound are con- We vinced that boarding circumstances, men under these transcontinental flights out man, reasonable cities, any crime, innocent of drug source Angeles, such as Los would not have capable saying felt “no” to subject virtually “would be random sei agents’ demand to bag. search the See zures,” regardless guilt. of innocence or 673; Clardy, 819 F.2d at Maragh, F.2d Reid, See 448 U.S. at 100 S.Ct. at 2754. 419-20; Fields, 7; 733 F.Supp. at Feld- Aptheker State, Secretary also er, F.Supp. at 208. 500, 519-20, 1670- 12 L.Ed.2d (Douglas, J. con D. curring) (“[FJreedom of movement The Government contends that because very of our society, setting essence free us Sornberger opened Officer luggage Grant’s apart. right Like the assembly and the in New York under the direction of La- association, right of it makes other all Grone, a supervisor, Northwest Airlines rights meaningful_”). the search of luggage pri- was a totality circumstances governed vate search the fourth case, present therefore, yield “par- did not amendment. responds suspicion” justify ticularized search of his luggage New York was seizure of Grant on a “based directed and conducted Government of- and articulable of criminal activi- ficials violation of the fourth amend- ty.” Clardy, 819 at 673. agree. ment. We States, (1927). Lustig v. Chadwick, also United 433 U.S. See v. In United States 74, 78-79, 1372, 1373-74, (1977), 2476, the 69 S.Ct. 1, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 97 S.Ct. (1949); a non-consensu- Supreme Corngold invalidated 1819 v. United Court 93 L.Ed. Cir.1966). foot- al, 1, defendants’ States, warrantless search of 6 367 F.2d ex- agents. The Court by federal locker arrested and Because Grant had been lug- of searches that “warrantless plained danger that the evidence was no there time seized at the gage property or other destroyed, there was no be lost or justified as incident cannot be of an arrest failure to justification for the officers’ ob ‘search is remote either if to that arrest the prior searching a search warrant tain arrest,’ or no place from in time or seizing cans. luggage and See 15, 97 S.Ct. exigency exists.” Id. at Place, 696, 462 701- v. U.S. United States States, v. United (quoting Preston 2485 2637, (1983); 02, L.Ed.2d 110 103 S.Ct. 77 881, 883, 364, 367, 11 84 U.S. S.Ct. 376 573, 587, 100 York, Payton v. New U.S. 445 (1964)). 777 L.Ed.2d (1980). 1371, 1380, 639 63 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Similarly, the non-consen officers’ lug removing the from Grant’s cans After lug sual, of Grant’s warrantless search in a placed them North gage, the officers justified by cannot be gage in New York area, evidencing appar storage west arrest, nor detention, subsequent Grant’s exigent no cir ent belief that there were The Govern exigent circumstances. any search. justify a warrantless cumstances severely un is appeal in this case ment’s Compare Haley, v. conduct prior to by the fact that dermined (8th Cir.) 723, (exigent circumstances 726 search, Sornberger contact Officer ing potential medical presence in the found Attorney ed an assistant United States denied, 439 U.S. emergency), cert. he needed told him that Detroit who (1978). L.Ed.2d 681 More S.Ct. Grant, bag. open the warrant search over, the cans testing of the contents of legal F.Supp. Ignoring at 801. extensive, too remote in as well as too Sornberger went Officer requirement, detention, to place time Grant’s search; thus, violating ahead with the exception to the as a “field test” qualify rights. The amendment fourth Grant’s amend requirement of the fourth warrant that Grant now contends Government Jacobsen, 466 States ment. See United prior to the search. luggage abandoned 1652, 1662, U.S. however, found, that al court district facts, we have On these morning, in the though he vacillated earlier lug of Grant’s that the search concluded ownership lug of the acknowledged search, but an gage private not a luggage did 7:45 AM and gage before conducted impermissible public search AM. York 8:30 arrive in New until agent. Sornberger and the customs Officer search, Thus, the time id. fully aware that in New York were III. Grant, he had belonged to as luggage ar ownership. The Government’s claimed was seized that because Grant We hold re private that the search gument amendment, the of the fourth violation finding that district court’s butted search during the Detroit evidence obtained Sornberger and a United Officer against used carry-on bag cannot be lock; searched Agent broke Customs States, 371 Wong Sun United him. See the cans con luggage; and discovered 9 L.Ed.2d U.S. Because Officer taining See id. POP. lug (1963). Similarly, Grant’s because conducted Sornberger directed and violation gage was searched en luggage joint in a obtained amendment, evidence fourth supervisor, “the with the Northwest deavor must New York search during the a¡lso.be though he had en same as is the effect . suppressed. See id one exclusive undertaking as gaged argues that the finally States, The Government Byars his own.” ly ordering re- erred in court L.Ed. 520 district S.Ct. leased on bond. Grant counters that the In the first level of contact, a law en- district correctly court set conditions forcement officer approaches person his release. See F.Supp. at 803. without any articulable reason whatsoever. However, because we affirm the district long As as a person would feel suppression order, court’s the Government free to situation, leave the no seizure has longer no has a against case occurred within the meaning of the fourth bond issue is moot. See Powell v. McCor amendment. See Florida Royer, mack, U.S. 75 L.Ed.2d 229 1950, 23 (1969); Carras (1983). The contact second, rises to the Williams, (6th Cir. somewhat intrusive, more of level contact 1986). See also United Dixon, States v. person when the no longer go. free feels (6th 787 F.2d 593 Cir.1986) (“[O]nce this type This of contact commonly is known as court appellate decides the issues [the] Terry stop. long So as agent has bond moot.”).4 issue will be United Cf. reasonable suspicion long and so as the Peralta, (D.C. 849 F.2d detention of the limited, traveller is Cir.1988) (finding no cause to remand fourth amendment offended. The transcript where the clearly embodied the final level police-traveller contact occurs district court’s reasons and findings for its police when the probable have cause to decision). detention believe a crime has been committed and For the foregoing reasons, the March the person stopped committed the 1990order suppressing evidence and March crime. In situations, such officer order releasing Grant on bail en- may, fact, in place the traveller under ar- tered Cohn, Honorable Avern rest, and may he conduct non-consensual States District Court for the Eastern Dis- searches the person belongings. his Michigan, trict of hereby are AFFIRMED. Even though he probable cause, has how- GUY, Jr., RALPH B. Judge, ever, Circuit government agent still must con- concurring part and dissenting part. duct his activities within the boundaries of the fourth I amendment. Because believe that the conduct of the government in this case conformed to the The majority merges analysis its requirements of the fourth un- amendment on-plane two interrogations of the defen- til agents DEA conducted a full labo- dant agents. my opinion, the two analysis ratory on the cans without first interrogations can and must separated securing warrant, I compelled am by the court in order to evaluate the fourth separately. write agree I with the conclu- implications amendment of the case. sion of the majority that the PCP must be suppressed, but I would reverse sup- The initial approach of the defendant by pression order as to all other evidence the Border Patrol agents was within the seized. first level of contact. agents did not

As we to detain Grant; stated in United States v. Flow- ers, were merely conducting Cir.1990), a routine there are check of flight three different levels 338. Border contact that Patrol occur routinely between law flights enforcement board Detroit and the to check travelling public. presents illegal This case pro- They aliens. are authorized by gression lowest, from the most statute to flights board innocuous within a reasonable level of contact to highest, most intru- distance5 of the international border. 8 sive level. 1357(a)(3). U.S.C. § recognize 4. We unpublished that the citation of 287.1(a)(2) 5. 8 C.F.R. § defines "reasonable dis- per Dixon, curiams is disfavored. We cite how- tance" to mean within 100 air miles of the ever, because it governing establishes the law border. present action and "there is no [Sixth Cir- published opinion cuit] that would serve as 24(b). well.” See 6th Cir.R. was volun- consent to the search totality of the circum- Looking at govern- they found that the tary. there was stances, Because I am convinced approach illegal the first before nothing improper about ment’s actions became search, Patrol agents. judge The Border district nor the by the neither the clothes, and their in civilian specific finding dressed ever made a majority Although Buech- weapons were concealed. mag- gave his whether consent. the shoulder Grant on tapped ner clearly erro- were not istrate’s conclusions manner overall badge, him showed neous, them. Con- and I would not disturb significantly, non-threatening. Most subsequent arrest sequently, movement, and not restrict they did legal, and all search-incident-to-arrest different to a him move they permitted point is admissi- up evidence to this seized from them. seat, away get presumably ble. reasonable case, would a only not In this the question becomes whether The next leave, Grant did to felt free person in New York search Grant’s suitcase of leave. search, it or whether private was a valid for agents approached the When magistrate illegal. The concluded was accompa- him to and asked second time the legal, private therefore the search seizure oc- airplane, a the ny off them majority con- the district court the but time, However, the this curred. that, Authority the Port cluded because suspicion that developed reasonable secure a war- been advised to officers had criminal might be associated partic- bag, the opening rant before First, on his photograph the activity. bag the at the of ipation in the search him, really like look did not green card an agent was of the Northwest direction the card agents to believe led the which This search. government impermissible Second, his name might counterfeit. a the distinction between blurs conclusion Third, manifest. flight the not on government search. private a green shaking as he handed Grant was govern- only proscribes fourth amendment Fourth, un- Grant was to Buechner. card the action; wholly inapplicable to it is ment ticket, saying that produce his able to unreasonable, private of actions, if even Although luggage. his checked it inwas acting as citizens, are those citizens unless highly improbable some- it is possible, States government. agents of plane ticket in check his one Jacobsen, v. already agents had Finally, the suitcase. (1984). illegal aliens on board. discovered factors, in iso of of enforcement Although presence each these law The mere give impli lation, rise not would be insufficient does private at a search officers suspicion suspicion, “articulable an Just as amendment. the fourth cate all assessment of upon to be based be vindi search cannot illegal government of a surrounding the actions private citi circumstances is a primary actor if the cated wrongdoer.” United States suspected not does zen, search non-governmental a Cir.1988), (6th Knox, 285, 290 simply because character its private lose 1019, 109 S.Ct. denied, 490 U.S. cert. tasks perform officers law enforcement together, (1989). Taken 104 L.Ed.2d In Unit private of a citizen. the directive gave rise reason listed above the factors Gomez, F.2d 643 ed States of Terry stop justifying able Ninth Circuit Cir.1979), example, the Grant. valid, one private was a a search held that helped an air though officer even probable lacked Because suit open the defendant’s supervisor line point, search cause Capra, also United case. See his consent bag had to be with carry-on denied, 420 Cir.1974), (2d cert. F.2d 267 Although there legal. to be order 43 L.Ed.2d 990, 95 S.Ct. evidentiary U.S. testimony at conflicting magistrate concluded hearing, Here, the Authority Port officers Jacobsen, were U.S. at 104 S.Ct. at 1661 merely assisting the Northwest (footnote service omitted). The laboratory analysis manager. LaGrone legitimate had a policy conducted clearly this case went beyond

justification for opening suitcase, be- the scope of any field test envisioned suspected cause he that the cans contained the Court in Jacobsen. The contents flammable materials. The search was le- cans were subjected to a full battery of gitimate, actions the law en- tests, which revealed only whether the forcement legal, up even cans PCP, contained exactly also what point opening the cans to sniff the they did contain. The actions DEA contents. point at this justified cannot be by Jacob The behavior of the law enforcement of- sen. ficers in this case questionable, became At point law enforcement officials however, when the DEA seized the cans seized cans for testing, their activities and took them to the laboratory to be ana- third, rose final, level of contact lyzed. Clearly, analysis the lab went be- between government and travellers. yond scope private search, as the The laboratory testing constituted search private merely disclosed cans within the meaning of the fourth amend- and the possibility they might contain ment, and it must be supported by probable a flammable substance. cause and either a warrant or excep- some government The contends that the labo- tion to the requirement. warrant ratory analysis made here was similar in government nature to the field argues test that approved that was this case is by the Court In Jacobsen, Jacobsen. controlled this court’s decision in United police officer conducted a test field on a States Rodriguez, 596 F.2d 169 Cir. small quantity of the powder 1979). white In that Rodriguez, employee of Em had been discovered to determine ery whether Air Freight opened package a and dis the substance was cocaine. The Court held covered that it large, a contained sealed that such field test did not compromise plastic bag, trash inside of which were a any legitimate privacy interest: number of transparent plastic bags contain A chemical test merely that ing brown, discloses powdery substance. There whether particular or not a substance is was also a lot powder of talcum loose in the n cocaine does not compromise any legit- larger trash bag. The employee contacted imate interest in privacy. This conclu- police department, and offi dependent sion is not on the of any result cer ultimately took of some the powder particular test. It is probably safe to back a laboratory testing. The test assume virtually all of the tests ing revealed powder brown was conducted under compara- circumstances PCP. The court determined that a govern ble to those disclosed this record ment search occurred, and seizure had positive result finding; in that justified it was “plain view” cases, such no legitimate interest has exception to the requirement. warrant been compromised. But if even the re- court stated that object plain view “[a]n sults are negative merely disclosing — may inspected and seized without a war the substance is something other (1) rant if lawfully present, (2) officer is than cocaine—such a result reveals noth- object view, in plain is its in ing of special interest. Congress has criminating nature is immediately appar decided—and question there is no about ent.” (footnote Id. at 175 omitted). power its to do so—to treat the interest in “privately” The instant possessing is distinguishable cocaine as case ille- from gitimate; governmental thus Rodriguez because conduct the incriminating na- that can reveal whether a ture of substance is cans not immediately ap- cocaine, and no other “private” parent. arguably Although it certainly unusual fact, compromises legitimate no privacy for someone to lacquer be carrying thinner interest. suitcase, or ether in a such circumstances of the in the conclusion I concur also conclusion inevitably to the not lead do the bond issue is moot. majority that By con- contraband. contained the cans parcel of a incriminating trast, nature bags plastic small

containing a number of immediately appar- powder

full of brown observation. plain view

ent cans, the DEA seized time At the America, STATES The UNITED to believe cause probable government Plaintiff-Appellee, First, had been committed. that a crime surrounding Grant’s the circumstances one-way MARTIN, was a It suspicious. L. ticket Dennis cash, in someone Defendant-Appellant. ticket, with purchased often ac- circumstances Such else’s name. No. 90-5411. by drug tickets company purchase Appeals, Court addition, lied about the he couriers. Sixth Circuit. lied about also ticket. He of the purchase carrying He cans. contents 5, 1990. Argued Nov. constituted person, which marijuana 4, 1990. Decided Dec. illegal his association evidence Rehearing En Banc Rehearing and that the cans con- Finally, the fact drugs. 23, 1991. Denied Jan. like ether indi- liquid that smelled tained a PCP. might contain cans cated existed, there cause probable

Given that not have why agents could

is no reason seizing and test- before

obtained warrant The cans of the cans.

ing the contents Airport at LaGuardia securely stored The defendant Airlines.

by Northwest them, as claim appeared

could custody Detroit.

he was reiterated, recently

As this court “[war- unreasonable per are se

rantless searches amendment, except ain

under fourth The ex- delineated instances. carefully

féw relies on exception

igent circumstances emergency of an the existence

premise that action,

situation, urgent police demanding a search procure the failure

may excuse Radka, 904

warrant.” (6th Cir.1990) (citations and sit- omitted). emergency No such

footnote case, in this and there was

uation existed urgent police action. need for

no the labo- the cans and

The seizure contents without of their

ratory analysis securing violated Grant’s a warrant

first free from right to be

fourth amendment I seizures. searches and

unreasonable of the cans. suppression

would affirm

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Harold Evan Grant

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 13, 1991

Citation: 920 F.2d 376

Docket Number: 90-1397, 90-1398

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.