United States v. Reginald Glover

America, Appellee, STATES UNITED GLOVER,

Reginald Defendant-

Appellant. 91-1339. Docket

No. Appeals, Circuit.

Second 31, 1991.

Argued Oct. 18, Feb.

Decided Greenman, Buffalo, L.

Herbert N.Y. Green, (Lipsitz, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury Cambria, counsel), & of defendant-ap- for pellant. Duszkiewicz, Atty.,

Thomas S. Asst. U.S. W.D.N.Y., Buffalo, (Dennis Vacco, N.Y. C. W.D.N.Y., counsel), Atty., ap- pellee. OAKES, Judge,

Before Chief ALTIMARI, LUMBARD and Circuit Judges.

ALTIMARI, Judge: Circuit Defendant-appellant Reginald ap- judgment conviction, peals from a en- tered in the United States District Court for the York Western District New (Richard Arcara, finding him Judge), J. guilty possession with the intent to dis- of 21 tribute cocaine violation U.S.C. 841(a)(1)(1988). § forming The contraband the basis of Glo- ver’s conviction was recovered from his luggage after an encounter between Glover Drug of a Enforcement Ad- and members (“DEA”) ministration Task Force at the Niagara Authority Frontier Transit Buffalo, (“NFTA”) terminal in New appeal, York. Glover contends that his On conviction should be reversed because the concluding district court erred in that his rights Fourth Amendment were not violat- and, during consequently, the encounter ed denying suppress the nar- his motion Specifi- from his suitcase. cotics recovered argues officers had cally, that the objective justify level Terra- fashion that jerky in a area tainting thereby bags, or his seizing him pos- detect calculated believed subsequent nova during found evidencе in this proceeded surveillance. sible luggage. of his search consensual exit. the terminal toward manner below, af-we forth set reasons For the court. district of the judgment the observa- of his firm aas result point, that At Glover, identi- approached tions, Terranova BACKGROUND if officer, and asked aas fied himself agreed one- Glover and question one Glover. past the he could approximately For subsequent During of the Terranova Investigator questioned. Paul to be years, half silently several and Department Spencer stood County questioning, Sheriffs Erie the began United the Terranova Spencer Terranova. Agent feet William behind re- members have been for identification. asking Border Patrol Glover by States sock, drug, re- enforces into his that reached Task Force Glover sponse, a DEA the currency laws wallet, handed Terranova and and immigration, his trieved transpor- card. other and at identification employee terminal bus NFTA handwritten of their part name, As Terranova in Buffalo. his asking centers Glover tation After ob- regularly members Glover duties, Force identificatiоn. Task requested additional early arriving on the Security doc- passengers Social photocopied serve produced City. York New from express bus Terrano- morning number. illegible with ument not acci- particular in this Glover Interest the identification that va noticed has ob- previously this Court As addresses. different dental. two contained provided principal City is the served, “New York why he was Glover asked then Terranova New western sold in drugs source that answered Glover visiting Buffalo. Montilla, 928 F.2d York,” States his surprise visit pay a town to inwas express bus Cir.1991), the (2d and the identifi- the nature Because aunt. transport drug traffickers used handwritten, provided Glover cation —one See United area. to the Buffalo ad- a different with and each illegible, one 606, 607 F.2d Torres, 949 phone if he could asked dress—Terranova In- at 584. Montilla, Cir.1991); his identification. to confirm aunt of se- questioning deed, Force’s Task the phone call refused, that the stating Glover approxi- yields passengers express bus lect re- also surprise. Glover ruin the month. per arrests to four mately three em- phone his Terranova to allow fused аt 584-85. Montilla, wrong- employer his that explaining ployer, Spencer and Terranova May On sick had taken Glover ly believed terminal NFTA bus patrol at on were Ter- with this encounter Throughout day. arrived express bus morning when heavily, sweating shak- ranova, Glover at Gate City and parked York from New looking to- continually nervously, and ing the bus disembarked passengers All the exit. ward through Gate terminal entered and told Glover then Glover, Terranova en- who defendant-appellant except smuggling drug with concerned Glover 4. Because through Gate tered Glover area asked York New Western flow of main from the himself separated re- Glover narcotics. carrying if he was continued Spencer traffic, Terranova re- then Glover he was not. sponded that ap- Glover They noticed him. observe his search request Terranova’s fused over continually looked nervous, peared not have did stating bags, a some- on and, though shoulders, outside luggage. to search cause” “probable only passenger day, cool what identification, holding Glover’s still he While As and brow. face sweating from his accompa- if Glover would asked carrying his Terranova building entered a further office for NFTA ny him bag and a (a shoulder unchecked two agreed on identification. check extremely suitcase), walked small go. entire continually scanned slowly Glover, Terranova, Spencer ar- possessing When intent to distribute a at the NFTA which was locat- rived controlled substance violation of 21 approximately thirty ed feet from the ter- 841(a)(1). U.S.C. § exit, asked, among minal Glover was other court, In district sup- moved to things, his birth date and whether he had a press marijuana cocaine, arguing history. stated that he the search of his was under- 3,1968, and that he was born November following taken an encounter po- with the minutes, history. had no criminal Within lice that violated his Fourth Amendment computer check of Glover’s identification rights. suppression After a hearing, Judge birthday that Glover’s was No- revealed Arcara first concluded that the initial en- 2, vember and that he had a histo- counter between Glover and the officers ry of narcotics-related and had arrests used entirely consensual. The District explain why aliases. asked to When he had Judge further found that the time the regarding history, lied his criminal Glover bags officers seized Glover’s in the NFTA responded that he believed Terranova’s by holding office test,” them for a “sniff question pertained only to crimes they clearly “had reasonable Buffalo area. based on articulable facts that [Glover] point, again At that Glover refused a carrying Finally, contraband.” the court request bags to have his Terra- searched. concluded that after dog the narcotics “hit bags nova then informed Glover that his bags, on” voluntarily con- would be detained until a narcotics detec- yielded sented to the search drugs. dog tion arrived to conduct a “sniff test.” Accordingly, the district court denied Glo- agent present Another in the office told suppress. ver’s motion to Glover subse- that, although would be quently plea entered a guilty, conditional detained, agent he was free to leave. The reserving right appeal the denial of dog also told Glover that if the reacted suppression appeal motion. This fol- positively bags, the officers would lowеd. apply for a search warrant. imme- leave, diately insisting refused that he DISCUSSION wanted remain to make sure the officers considering a district court’s rul obtained warrant. ing motion, suppression on a this Court arrived, dog approxi- the narcotics When findings reviews the district court’s factual mately thirty elapsed minutes from the standard, see, “clearly under a erroneous” go time Terranova had asked Glover to Springer, United States v. 946 F.2d inspec- the NFTA office. In a controlled 1012, (2d Cir.1991); 1015 United States v. involving pieces tion several different 484, (2d Cir.), Hooper, 935 F.2d 489 cert. luggage, dog bags. “hit on” Glover’s — denied, -, 663, 112 U.S. S.Ct. 116 dog’s reaction, Once informed of the (1991); L.Ed.2d 754 United States v. Mon bag, picked up his shoulder threw it onto a tilla, 588, construing 928 F.2d at all of the desk, and told the officers to search it. light evidence in the most favorable to the confirming After that Glover wanted the See, government. e.g., United v. States searched, bag Terranova examined its con- (2d Cir.), 928 F.2d 517 Villegas, cert. package containing tents and discovered — -, denied, U.S. 116 quantity marijuana. point, At that (1991); 104 L.Ed.2d United States v. Jack Investigator Force Bradley, Task June who son, Cir.), 652 F.2d 246 cert. de if had еntered the asked Glover she nied, 102 70 bag. could search his other Glover re- (1981). L.Ed.2d 594 “We review de novo sponded “[y]ou might as look in that well questions of law such as whether a seizure opening bag, Bradley too.” one After and, so, if containing occurred whether reasonable package discovered a a white suspicion justified Springer, it.” powder subsequently that was determined 489; 1015; Hooper, to be cocaine. Glover was then arrested see also 935 F.2d at Montilla, subsequently charged 928 F.2d at with one count 588. 490; e.g., Hooper, F.2d at analysis begins pre some Our with (5th Bradley, v. As stated liminary we observations. types Cir.1991). Hooper, there are three of encoun individuals, each police and ters between To a “seizure” determine whether under ramifications different triggering the Fourth Amend has occurred Amendment. See Fourth protections, must consider a court ment’s consensual encounter type The first “ 'if, all the circumstances in view of agrees to whereby willingly an individual [encounter], a reasonable surrounding the personnel. See speak to law enforcement person that he by the would have believed may be initiated id. [or she] Such contact ” Lee, suspi to leave.’ 916 F.2d at objective level free police without Chesternut, Michigan not, more, v. amount to (quoting cion and does implicating the Fourth Amend a “seizure” U.S. id.; see also Flor United States protections. (quoting ment’s L.Ed.2d 565 — Bostick, -, Mendenhall, ida (1991); Spring 2382, 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d (1980) (opinion 64 L.Ed.2d Lee, v. er, 1016; Bostick, 946 F.2d at Stewart, see also /.))); 111 (2d Cir.1990). 814, Discussing 819 one, see, objective at 2389. The test an consensual encoun parameters of such the 1016; Lee, Springer, 946 F.2d at 916 ters, recently Supreme the observed 819, how a reasonable F.2d at based on officers have in Bostick that “even when encounter. person would view the innocent suspecting particular a individ no basis Bostick, guide a to 111 S.Ct. at 2388. As ual, generally questions ask they may test, we have enumerated cer applying this ...; the ask examine that individual might suggest a that sei tain factors that ...; request identification individual’s occurred, namely: zure her to search his or ... consent threatening presence of several offi- the convey message a long police as the do not cers; display weapоn; physi- of a required.” compliance requests is with their officer; touching person by cal (citations 2386 omit 1 S.Ct. at 11 indicating language compli- tone ted). compulsory; with the officer ance encounter, type The second person’s person- retention of a prolonged Terry principles enunciated based effects, airplane tickets or al such as Ohio, 88 20 v. 392 U.S. identification; request by the offi- a (1968), a limited inves L.Ed.2d 889 involves police accompany him the sta- cer and/or his or tigative stop of individual police tion or room. Sharpe, United States bags. her Mendenhall, Lee, 819; also see F.2d at 916 1568, 1573, 84 105 S.Ct. (opinion at 100 S.Ct. 1877 Place, United States (1985); L.Ed.2d Stewart, J.); Springer, 946 F.2d at 1016. 2637, 2642, U.S. case, applica- present applying the In the Hooper, also (1983); see L.Ed.2d 110 standard, legal district court found ble Although limited 492-93. when, once bags were seized that Glover’s investigative detentions are scope, such office, told in the NFTA Amendment, Fourth under the “seizures” pending bags detained that his would be see, e.g., Hooper, F.2d at and must dog. Until that arrival of a narcotics suspicion sup on “a reasonable be based entire en- point, the found that court facts ported articulable ” The district court counter was consensual. United States v. activity ‘may be afoot.’ decide, raised, not the issue of but did Sokolow, seized at Glover was also Terry, whether (quoting L.Ed.2d being point, despite told that he was free 1884). The third 392 U.S. at Rather, observed that the court leave. is an arrest— type final of encounter perti- was not Glover was seized whether plainly a “seizure”— Fourth Amendment applied in the same standards probable cause. nent because must be based constitutionality of detain- terminate the determining the interview and leave would Moreover, bags. not turn an ing him as well as his otherwise consensual encounter investigative detention into a seizure. e.g., Springer, found that the court However, supported by F.2d at 1016. of Glover and his we believe that failure, suspicion carrying that he with the reasonable combined failure to return Challenging request the court’s conclu- Glover’s identification and narcotics. sions, room, accompany police contends that the seizure oc- the officers to a Terranova, earlier, when still retain- amounted to a seizure because under curred such identification, circumstances, ing person asked Glover to Glover’s felt accompany Compare Roy him to the NFTA office for free to leave. Glover, er, 501-02, questioning. According to further S.Ct. at 1326 Torres, then, (request did not or at other with 949 F.2d at 608 the officers encounter, office, accompany during police time have reasonable officers to more, seizure); investiga- did not justify Terry-type establish see also Lee, (factors bags. him 916 F.2d at 819 detention of or his which indicate tive a seizure occurred include an officer’s re Initially, prior note that we tention of an individual’s identification and to return to time Terranova asked Glover request accompany the officer to a security encounter the NFTA office). police Although accompanied by was consensual. ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‍approached Glo that a seizure Spencer, Terranova conclusion oc alone Our public place, point himself as a curred at that encounter ver in a identified offiсer, and, not, however, non-threatening in a with the officers does end Rather, manner, questions, inquiry. asked Glover certain re our we must consider identification, quested suspi and asked whether whether there existed a reasonable bags carrying have his cion that was Glover would consent to Glover narcotics to weapons justify for narcotics. No were a limited detention of Glover and his searched so, and, physical bags contact if whether the officers’ con displayed and there was scope permissible officers and Glover. Under duct exceeded the of a between circumstances, Place, plain investigative stop. that no sei 462 these it is U.S. at Bostick, 706-710, 2644-46; See, e.g., Royer, 111 103 S.Ct. at 460 zure had occurred. 2386, 2388; 498-500, 103 1325; Hooper, F.2d at at at Springer, at 946 U.S. S.Ct. S.Ct. 1016-17; 492; Lee, Hooper, F.2d at 916 935 F.2d at 492-94. 935 F.2d at 819. justify Terry-type To a limited

However, request investigative stop, a enforcement offi when Terranova law. suspicion public cer must have a reasonable based ed Glover to leave the area “is, suspect return to the NFTA securi on articulable facts that the been, engaged questioning, has or is to be ty office for further about activity.” Villegas, 928 F.2d at returning identification and with leave, 516; Sokolow, 7, 490 U.S. at 109 telling out Glover that he was free to see also 1585; 30, at 88 Terry, at we believe that Glover and were S.Ct. 1884; Hooper, 935 F.2d at 493. Royer, 460 U.S. S.Ct. at seized. See Florida v. 491, 501, 1319, 1326, Although concept suspi of reasonable 103 75 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. definition, (once susceptible precise not (plurality opinion) “officers cion is 229 Sokolow, see, 109 agents, e.g., 490 U.S. at identified themselves as narcotics 1585; req suspected Hooper, at 935 F.2d at he was of trans told [defendant] narcotics, suspicion an him to level of to make investi porting and asked accom uisite “ room, stop ‘considerably less than gative retain is pany them to the while preponderance of proof wrongdoing by a ing and driver’s license and with his ticket ” 928 F.2d at 516 indicating way Villegas, he free the evidence.’ out was Sokolow, 490 at 109 S.Ct. effectively (quoting U.S. depart, [defendant] 1585). Still, Amendment seized”). alone, Fourth Standing fail at Terranova’s “[t]he objective requires ‘some minimal level free to ure to advise Glover that 1010 entered the terminal passengers making stop.” Soko

justification’ for parked, (quot through the bus had low, at 1585 Gate where 490 at U.S. separated himself from the main- Glover ing Delgado, INS v. (1984)). 1758, 1763, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 entered the terminal alone stream and suspi thirty through twenty an inchoate feet Consequently, officer’s Gate some terminal, justify away. hunch is insufficient cion or mere As Glover entered Sokolow, 490 U.S. Terry-type Spencer a detention. that he Terranova and observed (citing manner, Terry, at extremely con- in an slow walked 1883). scanning 88 S.Ct. at tinually the entire terminal area movements, de- quick, jerky apparently determining The standard signed possible detect surveillance. justified particular stop whether one, objective suspicion reasonable Glover, approached After Terranova Salazar, see, e.g., States v. himself, identifica- identified and asked for Cir.1991); Villegas, F.2d tion, produced from his sock two Nersesian, 516; F.2d United States pieces identification: one handwritten denied, (2d Cir.), cert. photo- employee card and one identification L.Ed.2d par- copied Security document with Social (1987), dependent intentions piece tially number. Each obliterated dеtaining offi particular motivations of a different address. identification bore Nersesian, cers. Buffalo, why he When asked suspected the case of responded paying surprise he was trafficking, an officer’s will aunt. to allow visit Glover refused if, totality considering the verify to contact his aunt to stop, surrounding the the circumstances identification, so explaining that do suspect to one appear conduct would “the surprise. would ruin his He also refused practices of narcotics familiar with employer to contact his to allow Terranova couriers, pattern of behavior albeit although allegedly took because Vil innocuous to the untrained observer.” really on vacation. More- day, sick omitted); (citation 928 F.2d at 516 legas, over, encounter, throughout Price, 599 F.2d see also United States sweating heavily shaking nervous- Cir.1979). 494, 501 ly. present case, point when In the at findings sup are These factual Glover to return

Terranova asked “clearly ported by the record and are not security the district court NFTA found, e.g., Hooper, 935 F.2d things, that Glover erroneous.”1 among other 489; F.2d Villegas, from York at at 517. Glover travеling to Buffalo New argues, however, essentially city” narcotics for west- each City, a “source facts, true, even if is innocuous and particular, trav- these ern New York. finding morning bus, support fails of reasonable eling early express disagree. drug suspicion. We Even conduct by has used couriers which been may form the seemingly area. innocent basis transport narcotics to the Buffalo 607; activity Torres, Mantilla, suspicion that criminal 928 reasonable bus, Sokolow, 490 U.S. at As he exited the afoot. F.2d at 584. omitted). Here, (citation although at 1586 sweating from his face and brow and nervously separately may be consist over his each fact viewed looking around travel, NFTA termi- ent with innocent we believe as he entered the shoulders conduct, objectively Moreover, other overall viewed although all of the nal. support finding suitcase was "small.” This error is its that there existed that Glover’s harmless, however, 1. In bags, 52(a), suspicion to detain Glover's reasonable see Fed.R.Crim.P. be- carry- found that Glover was finding district court also ing rely upon cause do not deter- we "large” as exited the unchecked suitcase suspicion mining whether reasonable existed finding “clearly This erroneous” because bus. testimony the instant case. suppression hearing established at the drug Place, an officer familiar with courier see also 462 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at see, 2645. In practices, Villegas, making inquiry, this Supreme gave suspicion has cautioned that a rise to a reasonable court should not “ ‘indulge in narcotics, unrealistic transporting thereby second-guessing’ Glover was to the means law enforcement officers warranting the detention of and his ... employ to conduct their investigations.” investigation. bags for further See Soko Hooper, (quoting 935 F.2d at 497 Sharpe, 9-10, low, 1586-87; 490 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. at 1575); 470 U.S. at 105 S.Ct. at see also 560-61, 564-65, Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at Alexander, United States v. 907 F.2d (Powell, ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‍J, 100 S.Ct. at concur — (2d Cir.1990), denied, cert. Torres, 608; ring); 949 F.2d at Springer, -, 112 L.Ed.2d 1067 1017; 493; Hooper, 946 F.2d at 935 F.2d at (1991). question “The simply is not wheth- Lee, 916 F.2d at 820. er some ... alternative was avail- [method] Having determined that there ex able, but whether acted unrea- suspicion justify isted reasonable an in sonably failing recognize pursue vestigative stop, we must next consider Sharpe, it.” 470 U.S. at 105 S.Ct. at whether the officers’ actual conduct fell 1576; Alexander, see also 907 F.2d at 273. permissible sсope Terry- within the of a We observe further that the ap- standards type investigative stop detention. For an plicable assessing propriety of such suspicion pass on based con Terry-type stops apply equally to the de- muster, ensuing investiga stitutional tention of individuals and/or their reasonably scope tion must be related in personal Place, or other effects. See and duration jus circumstances that 708-09, 2645; U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at instance, stop tified the in the first so toas Sterling, (7th States v. minimally intrusive of the individual’s Cir.1990). Sharpe, Fourth Amendment interests. See Relying principally Royer, on 460 U.S. at 685-86, 1575; S.Ct. at 503, 103 S.Ct. at Glover contends that Place, 462 U.S. at detention the NFTA office was a de 2644, 2645; Royer, 460 U.S. at argues arrest. Glover also that the facto If investigative stop S.Ct. at 1325. an permis detention of his exceeded based on reasonable continues sible boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. long unreasonably too or becomes intru unpersuasive. We find these contentions sive, ripen it will into a de arrest that facto In Royer, approached officers the defen- probable must be based cause. See courier, Royer, suspected dant 1575; Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 105 S.Ct. at him, airport, questioned obtained his in. Hooper, 935 F.2d at 494. identification, airline tickets and told him evaluating A critical factor in the intru- suspected drug smuggling, stop length siveness of a is the accompany police asked him to them to a See, e.g., Sharpe, detention. 470 U.S. at room, pro- room. Once in the the officers 675-76, 1570; Place, 105 at S.Ct. investigation ceeded with their and re- 2645; Hooper, at 103 S.Ct. at Royer’s luggage trieved from the airline exists, bright-line however, at 495. No rule consent, telling without his all without ever per- to determine the outer time limit of a Royer he was free to leave and catch that Place, Terry-type stop. See, e.g., missible opinion, plane. plurality In a the Su- Rather, 462 U.S. at 103 S.Ct. at 2645. preme held that Court under such circum- considering in the reasonableness of the stances, Royer effectively was under ar- detention, particular duration of a a court rest. 103 460 U.S. at S.Ct. at See police diligent- must “examine whether the conclusion, support 1327. In of this the pursued investigation ly a means of that plurality scrutinized the means of investi- likely dispel suspi- was to confirm or their gation by agents used the and found that quickly, during cions time it they which was were overintrusive under the circum- necessary Among things, to detain the defendant.” the Court stances. other 1575; le- Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 105 at noted that the record reflected that no S.Ct. identification, to his refusal the ture were purposes enforcement law gitimate information the verify them securi- allow to the Royer go asking by served other the employer, or his 1328. at his aunt 505, 103 S.Ct. Id. at

ty office. of rea- contributing to the existence officers the that factors addition, found the Court that narcotics not believe to, do suspicion, use we have, failed but sonable could defen- was of conduct test” course a “sniff chosen perform dog the officers’ in resulted at have Sharpe, could U.S. bags, which See dant’s unreasonable. at 505- Id. momentary detention. 1575-76; Hoo- also only a see 686-87, 105 S.Ct. at Although per- 1328-29. at 06, 103 S.Ct. at 497. per, buttressed the dispositive, haps not unlike the Second, importantly, more subject to Royer was its conclusion expressly was Glover Royer, in defendant the State indicating that arrest de facto the leave free to that he told Roy- lower courts in conceded had detained be bags would though his Id. leave. free have been not er would Dunaway dog’s arrival. pending 1327. at 503, 103 S.Ct. at York, v. New establishing a Royer not read doWe (factor in 60 L.Ed.2d airport, an moving from rule per se arrest under suspect determining whether office to a bus, train go). free to is he he is told is whether encounter, pur for Terry-type during a however, chose leave, than Rather automatical investigation, further poses offi- that the to ensure order to remain stop permissible otherwise an ly converts point, At a warrant. obtained cers at upon arrival arrest impermissible into dog on that a knew States United office. dog’s on that, depending way and Cir.1988), (6th 285, 290-91 Knox, be could over reaction, his detention 1019, 109 S.Ct. denied, cert. 504, 103 at Royer, 460 U.S. order.” “short (1989); L.Ed.2d still officers Although 1178, 1190-91 1328. at S.Ct. F.Supp. Borrero, indicated must case identification each had Rather (E.D.Mich.1991). until luggage to determine detain they facts on its evaluated justified he was told arrived, seizure once particular dog whether a suspicion. See was, cir- leave, reasonable under he grounds free 685-86, under сase, Sharpe, plainly not of this cumstances 506-07, U.S. at Royer, 1575; also see arrest. arrest, not under only was Glover Not case, we of this the circumstances Under longer “seized” arguably but rip- detention that Glover’s not believe do While purposes. Fourth Amendment Royer arrest. a full-blown into ened specifically tell Glover failed officers First, unlike distinguishable. plainly he chose to if retrieve how to Spencer Royer, Terranova officers encourage, see dowe practice leave—a purpose law enforcement legitimate 710, 103 n. at 708 & Place, 462 U.S. NFTA return asking reason given Glover’s 2645 & n. 2646— sus- existed there office. Once officers’ i.e., remaining, to monitor for narcotics engaged in picion to failure their say that conduct, cannot we in con- justified were officers activity, the lug his how to recover on instruct verify the to check computer ducting a negative proved test” “sniff if the gage facially and dubious his rather accuracy of effectively as to stay so him caused handwritten identification—a unreliable Moreover, re with seizure. his continue Social photocopied card and employment identification, we believe Glover’s gard to illegible num- with Security document leave, a free that, told once they be that may hindsight, it ber. circumstances under person iden- Glover’s could verified somehow the officers requested simply have return asking him tification identification. na- to return However, considering office. however, airport security that Glover re- in assuming, office defendants and Even Fourth Amend- luggage under the mained seized their followed “sniff held test” ment, despite being reasonable); told that he was free to Borrero, F.Supp. at 1189- leave, id., detain- do not believe that see we (seventy minute in security detention along bags until the arriv- ing office, him part necessity due in for transla dog narcotics converted an other- al of the tion, prior performance of “sniff test” detention based on reason- permissible wise reasonable); held ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‍United States v. Sul cf. requiring suspicion into an arrest able livan, 1093, 1097-98(7th Cir.1990) 903 F.2d returning Upon cause. probable (forty-five minute detention of diligently the officers’ acted NFTA reasonable). “sniff test” held non-threatening manner to confirm Accordingly, we conclude that the offi- dispel suspicions their that Glover was or investigative stop cers’ of Glover and his trafficking. They engaged in narcotics bags permissible Terry-type was a deten- computer conducted a check to promptly tion founded on a reasonable identification, learned, verify Glover’s engaged narcotics traffick- representations, contrary to Glover’s ing. Although uphold investigative we convictions, prior had had also stop bags somewhat aliases, given had an incorrect used grounds upon by than those relied different refused consent to Once Glover birthdate. court, the district it is well-settled that a immediately bags, search his the officers reviewing “may court affirm ‘on dog, arranged for the narcotics which ar- grounds for which there is a record suffi- twenty minutes later. Both rived about law, permit cient to conclusions of includ- computer dog and the sniff were search ing grounds upon by not relied the district confirming minimally intrusive means ” Chesley Corp., court.’ v. Union Carbide suspicion. dispelling the officers’ (2d Cir.1991)(citation 927 F.2d omit- Place, at 103 S.Ct. at 2644 462 U.S. ted). intrusive). (“sniff minimally test” dog Finally, once the narcotics “hit Moreover, calculated from the moment bags, probable on” Glover’s bags initially seized Glover and his were See, a search e.g., cause obtain warrant. dog, ap the arrival of the narcotics until 1329; Royer, 460 U.S. elapsed. proximately thirty minutes had Waltzer, 682 F.2d United States v. clarify time used to Glo Part of this (2d Cir.1982), denied, 463 U.S. cert. misrepresentations regarding his ver’s 77 L.Ed.2d 1392 diligence background. Given the officer’s (1983). Glover, however, consented to a pursuing investigation, given their bags of his a warrant was search before interest the Government’s substantial challenged by Although not Glo obtained. interdiction, Place, see, drug e.g., appeal, agree with the district ver on we (citing 103 S.Ct. at 2642 Menden that the warrantless sei court’s conclusion hall, at 1880 446 U.S. at bags zure of the contraband from Glover’s J., (Powell, concurring)); Hooper, 935 F.2d following proper the “sniff test” was be approximately detaining Glover for cause, totality the circum under the thirty minutes with his to conduct stances, consent to the search was the arrival questioning brief and to await voluntary. entirely dog of the narcotics was a limited intrusiоn 411, 424-25, Watson, 423 Amendment interests on Glover’s Fourth (1976); 820, 828, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 suspicion. wholly justified by reasonable Bustamonte, Schneckloth v. Mondello, See United States v. 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (9th Cir.1991)(thirty minute de (1973); Price, 599 F.2d at 503. and his inside tention of defendant plane drug agents ar private while CONCLUSION dog inspect defen ranged for narcotics to foregoing, judgment of reasonable); Knox, the Based luggage held dant’s the district court is affirmed. (thirty at 290-91 minute detention 1014 a has that found Supreme Court concurring: The Judge, LUMBARD, Circuit the if, all of in view “only of occurs seizure district court’s affirming the I concur incident, a surrounding the circumstances the suppress to motion of

denial have believed would person reasonable off carried bags he two from drugs seized States United free to leave.” he was not Buffalo, New York. upon arrival a bus 554, 544, 100 S.Ct. Mendenhall, U.S. 446 v. (1980). The 497 1877, L.Ed.2d 1870, Paul Ter- 64 Investigator 1990, 16, May On v. Royer, test in Florida this applied an over- Court arrive on Glover observed ranova 75 U.S. York, of 460 a means New from night bus “when finding that (1983), 229 L.Ed.2d recently that has drug carriers for travel narcotics as themselves identified officers United States See to attention. our come suspected Royer that told agents, Cir.1991); (2d Unit- 606 Torres, F.2d 949 v. narcotics, him and asked transporting (2d 1012 Springer, v. States ed room, while police to the them accompany and nervous was Cir.1991). seemed Glover and license and driver’s retaining his ticket Terra- observed. being about apprehensive he way that indicating in any Glover, identified himself approached nova effectively seized Royer was depart, free if would officer, Glover asked an as Amend- Fourth purposes for responded questions. answer some circumstances, those Under ment.” a xerox of a produced questioning “surely activity police found em- a handwritten security card social authority show of official to a amount[ed] card. ployment have person would ‘a reasonable such and Ter- was consensual This encounter to leave.'" free not believed proper. entirely “[A] conduct ranova’s at 1326 S.Ct. U.S. Royer, suspect] with speak request to simple [a 554, 100 Mendenhall, U.S. (quoting public aof atmosphere non-coercive 1877). under a seizure constitute not place” does not decision, did the Court reaching its States United amendment. fourth factors list particulаr upon a rely Cir.1991). (2d 583, 590 Montilla, oc seizure not a or whether determine “ physical ‘by means officer an Unless the cir all Rather, they viewed curred. authority, some has or show force de incident to surrounding the cumstances citizen’ ... liberty of a way restrained person not reasonable a whether termine a officer police a between encounter comply with compelled to felt have consensual, implicates citizen subsequent The Court request. police Springer, interest.” Fourth Amendment approach,” “contextual this ly reaffirmed v. Bos (quoting Florida F.2d at 1016 designed “is test that the emphasizing — -, tick, conduct, police effect of the coercive assess (1991)). also See L.Ed.2d on focus whole, rather than to as a taken Cir. Lee, 916 F.2d in iso of that conduct details particular a approach free to 1990)(“a officer police restraint a what constitutes ... lation questions”). a few ask public and person in conclude that person to liberty prompting only vary, not ‘leave’ will free to not he is accompanied then request, Upon issue, conduct particular com- Office NFTA Terranova the con in which setting also with the but identification, and puter check Chesternut, Michigan v. occurs.” duct nois There questioning. further agreed in Glover’s person to believe reason Bostick, 111 (1988). also L.Ed.2d to ac- compelled felt position would at 2389. or sub- the Office into Terranova company case, Royer, inas Although in this Consequently, questioning. further tomit themselves police identified this time.1 seized at not existed that there Altimari oc- seizure that a believe Although I do seizure, occurred. justify one to return asked curred when Judge Office, agree with Security I the NFTA However, a did occur suspicion, under seizure when Ter- Royer he was agents, told ranova announced he would detain defen- and asked the retained identification bags pending dant’s the arrival of a narcot- to another accompany them suspect time, dog. By ics detection Terrano- room, comprise the total- facts do not these suspicions sufficiently va’s had been con- they Royer. did in situation as ity of the justify firmed to such a limited Terranova, seizure. with Throughout the encountеr Ohio, Terry See of the officer’s did refuse some (1968). 20 L.Ed.2d 889 Terranova not allow Terranova to requests. He did knew that Glover had lied about his crimi- officer bags, replying that the search his record, history nal that he had a of narcot- probable cause. He also declined lacked . arrests, and had used ics aliases telephone either his em- allow Terranova information, past. Such combined with story. In verify his ployer or his aunt to observations, surely Terranova’s earlier instance, accepted each gave necessary rise to the “reasonable sus- matter. pursue did not response and supported by picion articulable facts that part of both Glover These actions ” activity ‘may afoot.’ be any claim that Terranova undermine Sokolow, by Terranova or intimidated Glover was (1989) (quoting 104 L.Ed.2d 1 comply requests. compelled felt with 1884). Terry, I find that under the Consequently, cannot police “con- case the circumstances of this dog signaled detection Once the narcotics compliance message that vey[ed] a presence drugs bags, in Glover’s it Bostick, required.” requests their [was] appropriate to search them. at 2386.2 event, undisputed it is that Glover consent- seizure, ed to the search. The search and Indeed, indicative of most of the factors events, preceding did not like the violate occurred are absent: a seizure has whether rights. fourth amendment the defendant’s police threatening presence of several officers; weapon; physical display of a OAKES, Judge, dissenting: Chief officer; by the touching person express bus from New “Do not take the compliance indicating that language or tone Attorney City to Buffalo!” This little York F.2d at compulsory. Springer, 946 warning posted at the should be General’s suggesting coercion only The factor 1016. building City Authority for New York Port identification the retention of Glover’s interrogated prefer not to those who papers by Terranova. deputy in Erie agents DEA or local sheriffs of Glover’s I that the detention believe identification, place of County as to their coercion, particu- papers does establish coming to Buf- employment, or reason fоr question the identification larly when falo, their or to be asked whether security card a xeroxed social consisted of they carrying if are searched to see can be employment card. handwritten and a narcotics. Montilla, There were no 928 F.2d at 583. the mistake of Reginald made not free to that Glover was indications doing very four other taking that bus and defen- circumstances leave. Under these things: suspicious accompany Terranova to decision to dant’s First, Samson- he did not check his small voluntarily, was made the NFTA Office bag in the bag shoulder-type ite-type no seizure occurred. leave); tion, Indeed, him he was free to involving and never told different cir- in other cases cumstances, Lee, (officer’s relied on in statement that Lee each of the factors F.2d at 819 cause seizure. Royer transporting drugs been found not to did was under Torres, (finding seizure, F.2d at 608 ”[v]iewing the because not constitute requested that Torres ac- officers seizure when context, the officer it is clear that statement in Montilla, room); company them into verbalizing something merely that was ... wаs seizure, despite (finding no F.2d at 588-89 already quite from the circum- obvious themselves fact that the officers identified stances.”). agents, identifica- retained Montilla’s clearly Cir.1980), fairly (2d had 29, 37 F.2d the bus underneath compartment luggage a to such prerequisite a established was in the kept them rather, but, presumably stop. surpris- his or on seat rack overhead and— the bus. off them ingly following reasons: for the say I this —carried of (on 16th sweating the Second, he think Investigator Terranova —I Sheriff’s how not know 1990) title, we do an though as May, and while technically that is had that he clothed, County we do know Sheriff’s Erie investigator for the trip. the assigned bus to eight-hour an had been finished he just department a about Buffalo for in Task Force DEA mistake, while big Third, a and this was “transportation the to work and a year half passengers other all of if not most Agent Whit- of Buffalo —was facilities” through walked express bus getting off Inves- fame.1 Circuit past Second more Terminal, Glo- Bus into the Buffalo 4Gate only for a had worked tigator Terranova twenty 5, all of through Gate ver walked transportation detail year and half dimensions not know away; we do feet indica- Force, with no Task Buffalo exact number 4 or the at Gate the doors expertise. training or other of outside tion was, 40), it (about but the bus people people at the over 250 stopped hadHe suspi- agent, investigating to at least arrests in the participated and terminal went “unusual” or cious six, maybe or or people of several —five doors. set of through the different success- of whom had least some more—at was, course, to the same Finally, of I do not suppress. argued motions fully around, looking continually investigator, under- I do not give, and can think that we slow exaggeratedly in an walking almost or any special give, Judge Altimari stand around manner, jerking head or Investigator Terranova weight to extra into as he came his shoulder over look back upon his somewhat based his observations terminal. the bus experience. expertise limited things caused these four It was the Buffalo preliminarily note also I Terranova, Paul agent, investigative Niagara Fron Terminal, known as Bus asking ques- him start and to stop Glover (NFTA) Ter Authority Transportation tier like, and the his identificаtion tions about termi airport as an minal, the same is not he would question whether as well as privacy expectations nal where one’s To baggage. agree to a search diminished, as Justice Blackmun re- Glover, may say correctly, I question of “extensive presence by the suggested, I cause.” probable equip have “You don’t plied, surveillance antihighjacking Investigator 491, Royer, think that 460 U.S. do not v. Florida ment.” 75 L.Ed.2d even had 103 S.Ct. activity so as dissenting), J., engaged (Blackmun, quoted 1, 6, 105 as a “Ter- known 469 U.S. Rodriguez, the brief detention v. justify Florida case, (1984) (per Terry v. 83 L.Ed.2d progenitor after the ry-stop” and, curiam). just 20 L.Ed.2d a bus It is Ohio, rule special I to be suspicion which there is some (1968), unless a reasonable expectations Amendment lowering Fourth Georgia, v. thought Reid (a spe general facilities transportation 65 L.Ed.2d in 440-41, 100 S.Ct. of), is to be heard I never rule curiam), our cial coupled with (1980) (per art lobby, an like hotel treated, suppose, I Buenaventura-Ariza, v. own U.S. give weight we justified extra Agent probably well Ger- Drug Administration Enforcement of an officer powers of observation of Second figured in number ard Whitmore experience. United training superior stops airport involving over cases Circuit years. Cir.1977). (2d Oates, 560 F.2d v. Vasquez-Santi- States States Buenaventura-Ariza, (ap- at 36 Cir.1979), see cert. But n. 3 ago, denied, city nervous from source pellants’ arrival 64 L.Ed.2d enable "wholly insufficient" Price, were demeanor (1980), and United 861 494, they reasonably suspect that Agent Whitmore detailing of his (2d Cir.1979), some n. 8 trafficking). drug involved experience were training and legendary His cases. Indeed, testimony mall, this was relied shopping museum, indoor congre court as one of the people upon by the district crowds of place where other bolstering these events its decision the fact that eleven critical facts gate. Nor does York, any Buffalo, New place in that the officers had reasonable took though I note the significance carrying even special the defendant was contra- in Judge Pratt’s dissent Unit when, in bags comments inside his inside band Hooper, 935 ed States him that NFTA the officers told — U.S.-, denied, Cir.), cert. they going to hold his until were (1991), describing an 116 L.Ed.2d dog detection arrived.2 airport “yet as Buffalo at the encounter more, the district court found What’s tactics example aggressive another unchecked was that Glover’s enforce- by federal law recently employed Judge “large,” which Altimari cor- a fact area, which in the Buffalo officials ment clearly erroneous rectly points out was Id. at in our cases.” well chronicled are “small,” and his since the suitcase was cases). (citing just bag presumably was shoulder coming “express bus” what of So True, Judge says that find- Altimari well. too numer- city”? As cases a “source from court a harmless ing by the district out, “source pointed ous to cite have absurd, anyone it is at least to error. But by law enforcement cities,” as testified bus, or an ever traveled on a who has in officers, virtually every city include matter, suggest airplane for that Any Lexis or size. something suspicious not about there that “source reveal search would Westlaw luggage in the checking one’s under-bus population every city with a include cities” damaged or compartment where it can be million, over most cities with one of over about; this is true if the otherwise batted only over 500,000, cities with and numerous largеr also true luggage is small but Thus, peo- 100,000 millions of inhabitants. if it is soft or its con- luggage, especially points of destination at various ple arrive fragile. tents are cities, so-called, they can yet from source walking through How about Glover’s virtually random subjected to hardly be Investiga- 4? To rather than Gate Gate 5 departure the fact of their seizures from though significant, this was Reid, 100 tor Terranova 448 U.S. at therefrom. See simply prefer to essentially many people city” is how ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‍“Source S.Ct. at 2754. crowding overnight express feet to avoid The an extra 20 meaningless term. walk arriving single in Buffa- set City, people York between from New with 40 other is sus- early morning, apparently doors, luggage, must remain lo in the all with Drug simply because or oc- pect purely Parenthetically, frequent unknown. transpor- regularly operates Force taking Task one commuters casional facilities, including the NFTA bus arriving tation trains Metro-North crowded at Buffalo. York would in New Central Station Grand plat- the train many people leave note that testified that Investigator Terranova gate rather than by an alternate form part because suspicions were aroused course, the Buffalo Of gate of arrival. luggage, as not checked his had if it has might different Terminal Bus people do on the according him most However, Patrol Border doors. wider bus, kept it apparently express but on the date Spencer, who seat, Agent William thus rack or on the overhead bus ter- working the Buffalo question it. off the bus with enabling him to walk his crimi- birthdate and about about his Judge opinion, it holds I read Altimari’s 2. As record, use record and the criminal nal at an earlier Glover occurred the seizure of fact, alias) (in these did one go to of "aliases” Glover to the officers asked time—when —since Glover to officers took until by not arise district court. held the NFTA office—than after bus, express city, office. Source the NFTA plainly this. Two Judge correct on Altimari gate baggage,” different "large, unchecked “facts” critical district court’s eleven more of the my are of mind equals more facts that four ruling (1) infor- the “false disappear with that — significance whatsoever. (by day!) given to the officers one mation” apt to be officers are by police Terranova, stopped are testi- Investigator minal with visibly so. nervous gate different of a use that Glover’s fied do him. Nor of concern in itself which did thing that Glover second The be reason- could be or it could I how see suspi- Terranova’s aroused least further ably. upon either cions, not relied if were even it Altimari, Judge court or district by the sweating, nerv- then of What any identi- he had whether terminal, when asked ex- ousness, around the glances affirmatively, replied fication, Glover walk, jerky move- slow and aggeratedly leg, his left sock of into the down reached Spencer and Terranova Both ments? pro- he which a from wallet retrieved “unusual”; Agent and as this was thought identifica- employment a handwritten than duced “more testified, was Glover Spencer Ter- Security form. a Social card and tion surroundings,” his about modestly curious carry anyone seen before had never ranova as was Glover means. It that whatever judges Probably the in sock. his his wallet manner in this terminal walking the in was in this because rely this behavior not on do up to came Investigator Terranova that try people often insecurity age of day and himself, ask- and started Glover, identified money or keep their they conceal where to take I would questions. ing a few Glover surprised that I papers of value. am other may have been that, proper it however it significant. it found Terranova if he Glover have asked agent to the for at questions answering a few mind card Third, employment would identification the nervousness walking or to point, photo attached that with no was handwritten finding that permit insufficient and address it, still name though it Glover’s suspected Glover reasonably they asked though, agents then when on it and written Buenaventura-Ariza, it. Is the activity, truthfully told name, his Glover initial though the odd? to it photo even F.2d at no attached that it had fact Security the sort form was may have been interrogation Social it. The I doubt Supreme name had Glover’s it encounter while photocopy, consensual and Fourth from implicates address a different now holds it showed Court Security card, Florida the Social and employment considerations. Amendment or, in 5-6, Terrano- indistinct U.S. itself was Rodriguez, 469 number word, “obliterated.” va’s 310-11. Terranova, items these and Investigator conduct Next, Glover’s For consider up; he testified during the initial did not add produced of identification

identification I con- “any what not Terranova did by Investigator Glover interrogation Again, neither proper when credentials.” moment sidered prior occurred rely Altimari Judge nor Glo- court Spencer, told the district Terranova, up by backed How “proper” credentials. lack of this NFTA office. on them the accompany ver address a different Judge people have court, many officers, district The (if card identification employment aspects of this their rely on various Altimari Social such) on their Securi- than they have finding encounter ty card? baggage con- that Glover’s conclude this from The evidence narcotics. court, tained Terranova, the district Finally, particularly find I encounter, of which none aspect rely on Altimari another Judge as follows. suspicious, refusals Glover’s questioning: initial re- confirm Terranova allow again, foremost, Glover once First and na- asked Terranova shaking sponses. sweating, nervous, visibly area to the Buffalo his one, ture of visit I, do for interrogation. during this aunt. visit his there to said he upon arrival surprising when find that not cre- “improper” Terranova, light of the by a approached one call if he could dentials, then asked him- identifies officer who enforcement law identification, and aunt to confirm creden- DEA shows his such and self as because he could replied who Glover people fact, suppose I most tials. — Bostick, Next, Florida v. Nothing surprise. was a visit -, 2382, 115 place employ- if he could call the L.Ed.2d 389 asked there, verify Supreme worked of the other recent ment to Bostick held sim name, contrary. vacation to cases is to the and that he was on refused, however, ply that there was not a “seizure” his aunt. Glover within visit employer meaning show the explaining that his Fourth Amendment and, him in the sick-book instead of on when officers boarded a bus as listed without replies suspicion, questioned passen I find of these articulable vacation. neither anyone snooping ger requested might what seem to his consent to search his baggаge drugs, interrogation particularly surprising advising or sus- him of his refuse, coupled right threatening the nerv- him picious, even when Indeed, Bostick restates the gun. all other referred with a ousness and conduct proposition opinion from the plurality to above. Royer, 103 S.Ct. at Ter- interrogation This initial ended when Delgado, v. INS 216-17, and 466 U.S. ranova asked Glover to come back to the 1758, 1762-63, 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed.2d 247 and, Terranova, according NFTA office (1984), cooperate, that “a refusal to point, At said “O.K.” this both more, does not furnish the minimal level of agree Judge Altimari and I that Glover was objective justification needed for a deten seized,3 particularly because Terranova tion or seizure.”4 111 S.Ct. at 2387. holding onto Glover’s credentials and Therefore, permit Glover’s refusal Ter- Agent Spencer because Border Patrol luggage weigh ranova to search his cannot side, standing by though back Terranova’s Michigan v. Cheste against him. Nor does during remaining silent the conversa rnut, 486 U.S. 108 S.Ct. we precisely tion. It is at this moment that (1988), anything L.Ed.2d 565 do more than un must make the ultimate determination support proposition here Supreme case lаw whether der the Court seized when the officers asked him to the officers “articulable go to the NFTA since its test that a com person has committed or is about to person occurs seizure when Rodriguez, Florida v. crime.” mit a would believe that he or she is not “free to Florida (quoting 105 S.Ct. at 310 leave,” who, applies person in the case of a Royer, at 1324 Glover, walking like is down the street or White, J.)). I it (opinion of assume that through airport lobby or bus suspicion” true that “articulable still holds stopped interrogated by when he is requirement includes the the authori officers, qualified even as in the on-the-bus “possess specific and articulable ties must Bostick, situation set forth in S.Ct. at warranting a that a facts reasonable belief 2387-88. narcotics,” luggage traveler’s contains Place, 696, 703, I I therefore dissent. do so on basis United States case, (1983), as we have 77 L.Ed.2d 110 of the facts of law person Supreme it from the Court and our own where the as well as the stated, court, deeper reason. I previously but also for a seized. For the reasons possessed day people hate to see thе when can I not think the officers here would do terminals, facts, stopped in de- randomly a reasonable be be such nor had such stores, buildings shop- partment office lief. room, retaining Royer, while his ticket and are of course bound Florida v. 3. We 491, 501-06, 1319, 1326-29, indicating 460 L.Ed.2d 229 license and without in driver’s (1983), stated at in which the Court Royer way depart, that he was free to S.Ct. at 1326: effectively purposes of the seized for the examining Royer's Asking for and ticket and Fourth Amendment. permissible license were no doubt his driver’s themselves, does, the officers identified help but when Star 4. We will need if it ever agents, Royer themselves as narcotics told contrary Inquisition and the Chamber suspected transporting narcot- that he was notwithstanding. ics, accompany them to the asked him Sokolowski; A. York; David tempo- John holding by individuals malls ping Landry; Haa; Boyle; Charles asked, C. David government in the rary power Swanson; Midland Marine cooperation Ernest voluntary name in the Parker; Allen N.A.; C. Bank, identification, travel Robert enforcement, for law Rose, Proskauer, & Men Goetz Taylor; “credentials,” Terranova’s to use papers, Braсeo, Defen delsohn; J. inability proper- Carmina words, the basis and on dants-Appellees, standards —what- satisfy the officer’s toly until and held seized they are—to be ever Inc., Management Tower Asset Tower sniffing dog can obtained, a be can warrant Securities, Tower Corporation; Capital finally giv- up, or “consent” brought Randolph Levy; Inc.; W. A. Andrew of both short, the views I share en. Defendants, Levering, Wheeler; Walter dissent quoted as Florida court Marshall, Stevens Blackmun Justices Zelman, Seham, & Klein Epstein, Bert Judge 2391, and Bostick, 111 S.Ct. Seham; & IOMM Esqs.; Martin Hooper, his dissent stated in Pratt P, Appellees, hope that One 499-500. F.2d at Appellant. Company, make drugs does Insurance Federal war police state. 91-6276, 91-6288. Dockets Nos. Appeals, Circuit.

Second 18, 1991. Dec. Argued 21, 1992. Feb. Decided 18, 1992. March Amended As PILOTS & MATES re MASTERS IRAP AND PLAN PENSION

LITIGATION. Bomareto; George CULLEN;

Andrew Beck; Mo McGuire; A.J. Harold Paul ‍​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‍Chadbourne; E. Francis rales; Guy Plan; MM & & Pension Kyser; MM P Plan; Account Individual Retirement

P Nielsen; Florin Prevas; H. Paul Pete Haverfield; M. John Dente; N. James Secretary Martin, Lynn Hayes; Labor; Department Holdeman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Arthur RILEY, Defendant- K.

Franklin

Appellant, Martin; Paul Lowen; Lloyd M. J.

Robert DiPrisco; Richard Bardyn; Michael Hammer; F. Martin

Evans; R. James Mur Morgan; Robert

Hickey; Edward Naccarato; W. Anthony Robert phy; Taylor; Parker; Swayne; Allen Michael Davis; Ristine; Edmund I.

William Scott; Francis Hayes; C. Allen James Nereaux; David Keyser; Henri L. E.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Reginald Glover

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Feb 18, 1992

Citation: 957 F.2d 1004

Docket Number: 300, Docket 91-1339

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.