Sunday, October 28, 2012

Stop and Flop

United States v. Wilson, No. 11-915 (2d Cir. October 25, 2012) (Jacobs, Calabresi, Pooler, CJJ)

Defendant Wilson was subject to a car stop near New York’s border with Canada. He was just outside of the St. Regis Mohawk reservation, not a member of the tribe, and the officers who stopped the car - which was registered to a known marijuana dealer - were members of the tribal police department. As tribal officers, under state law they were without authority to exercise police duties outside of the reservation, although one of them was also cross-designated as a U.S. Customers Officer by ICE. After a brief interview, in which Wilson admitted traveling into and out of Canada, and scoring a bit of weed while there, a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, who had arrived after the stop, searched Wilson’s car and found three bags of marijuana.

The district court suppressed the evidence, finding that the car stop violated the Fourth Amendment. The lower court concluded that the tribal officers lacked the authority to stop the car: as tribal police officers they could not act and, although one was designated a Customers Officer, the regulation covering such designations required him to obtain prior authorization to exercise customs authority, which he had not. 

On this, the government’s appeal, the circuit reversed.  The court held that the relevant Supreme Court Fourth Amendment precedents make clear that the legality of a stop turns on the existence of probable cause and not on the officers’ jurisdictional bounds. While a search or seizure based on probable cause might violate the Fourth Amendment if conducted in an “extraordinary manner” that is “unusually harmful to an individual’s privacy” or “physical interests,” that exception is not implicated by a run-of-the-mill car stop. “[T]he Fourth Amendment does not generally incorporate local statutory or regulatory restrictions on seizures and ... the violation of such restrictions will not generally affect the constitutionality of a seizure supported by probable cause.”

Here, the officers had probable cause to believe that Wilson had intentionally failed to enter the United States at a designated border crossing, a violation of federal law, and that he was driving with an obstructed license plate, in violation of New York’s Vehicle and Traffic Law.  And the ICE directive that would have given the tribal officer authority to act but that was not followed here was of no consequence to the analysis. “Nothing about the Fourth Amendment elevates an internal law enforcement agency directive regarding the chain of command to constitutional significance.” The agent’s failure to seek authorization did not result in the stop’s being conducted in an “extraordinary manner.” After all, he was indeed a Customs Officer at the time.

As a separate matter, the court also concluded that there was probable cause for the search of Wilson’s car, not just the stop. The officers knew that Wilson was driving a car registered to a marijuana dealer, and he admitted buying marijuana while in Canada.

Finally, this decision leaves open an important question: whether a violation of the state’s jurisdictional statute - under which the tribal officers lacked authority to act outside of the reservation - affected the reasonableness of the stop. The government’s position was that all that matters is the level of suspicion, but the court did not take on this question. Deciding whether local geographical jurisdictional limitations are relevant to the Fourth Amendment will have “far reaching effects,” and it was not necessary to decide the question here.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

My relatives all the time say that I am killing my time here at web, however I know I am getting experience every day by reading thes
nice content.

Also visit my web blog additional Resources

February 23, 2013 at 5:39 PM  
Blogger alex hren said...

That’s right, this website is one of the top 12,000 most viewed in FUCKING PAKISTAN.
Why? Because they are the “English speaking writers” this fucked up company hires. I have also found evidence that suggests they have other writers in India and the Philippines. I know of a couple of companies that offer real English writers and I thought was one of them. Turns out they’re just a bunch of liars.

The scam is real. They are thieves who could care less about you. Maybe you’ve had a couple decent papers from them. But sleep well knowing that they will take any measure to screw you over.

That’s enough. Rant’s over. Fuck you,


Reviewed by Sean Evans on March 25,2013 – Rating: 1.0
Miserable experience.They ripped me off for $600 for a dissertation and refuse to give me my money back.”
Taylor on June 4, 2013 at 10:52 PM said:
You are right. I have been debating with them for at least a month now, trying to get my refunds, it’s because the writer can’t even write shit or follow the prompt. Claimed to be “professional” yeah right. They also claimed that they refunded my money already by just clearing out my balance. However, the email I received from money bookers still saying I was charged on that date. They lied & keep on saying “your refunds should be in 4-6.” i waited & after 2 weeks, still nothing. I keep on checking back even though they closed my inquiry many times. I mean, I only uploaded $55 for the balance, but I didn’t use it. The money isn’t that a big deal, it’s just the writers & their service is poorly done. I cancelled the writer because 1. Passed deadline 2. The paper was off topic, completely vague, lacks development & much more. 3. way different from U.S writing style 4. Busy schedule & I just want to try how this service work. Personally, i definitely to not recommend this service.

Reply ↓
admin on June 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM said:
Thanks for your feedback, I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one.

October 21, 2013 at 8:07 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home