3 12 12 Coughlin's MTN To Return Cell Phones, Set Aside Summary Contempt Order, Notice of Appeal Thereof Etc RMC Holmes 26800 0204 62337 Stamped Full

i
Z
3
4
8
1

i0
i1
i2
13
i4
1ocumn1Lodc:
80h Lm@
cVada 81!o. V43
1422 . V" 51. 92
Vcnu, N 6V2
cc! 3-6-6 6
+~** * A* *-^>=T* **
IW Dtrtoc!\Ir J1 I J4 g. 0I L
f|LLU
hLNNukll|FAL LUU1
J| HlR | kH B |
L.L] rt \ i : - *

q ~
]a:V4V--4Z
P11uDcjIot 1tu 5c^1owcj Y!U Lcncd 5XIh Pmcndmcn1 Hgh1u LounSc
1 VL N1L1YPL LL1V L1 15PL tNPLP
PLLH LL1!YL P51L
IL1VL

P1111

LBGO C 268UU

LO[T NO
PLH LL1L1L1,

i1
8
20
2J
ZZ
Zd
24

21

LLN15 ^L, Lccnd8nI /ch Loughn, bjand1hroughh:mSc18ndcSIhcwvc1:1Ic
documcm onDS uWn DcD8! Dut mcSSn' Wth J. Ju Dc J mc8n\unc D8d Dc \:mcS
bm cr onc'S 1coWmaca1oDcjS ScckngadmSS:uD1o 1hc cV8da8ta1thc 1mc. 1 w
1otWn1c cnOugh WutKmound cn L. LcDD8on, Sq. 1u1e Vcj_ Vc1j Shut\\\mc, Su 1knuW Wh
DctcdDcacD18Dd 1utt1udc \hoSc 1t8\ 0QoSScSS. hIIQ.nS8.DcVad80u\urc.otg/\DdcX.QhQ?
uQ:on+0om_con\cn\G\aSXVcWG\d94&Icm:d^916
ctSun8), DatcV cVcn bcgID1o 8tguc 8gaIDS\ 8njthDgJmgh1 c8D1oWmS. 1uWcvct,
"mjback\S1o1DcW8, goU8bt8W",So 1 du1ha1 hcD1 obVouSjD8Vc \o, Wh\ch S no1cc8t\u

WTP 3 67 7>D& PMQ MQT&VX O AT$| O 5UWWY VHT OJ QOQ M(Q O 1 0!DT w
O1L 1!5U1C1W DX VRQ OH 7ET2J

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
me at thi0 Boint. /erhaB0 1 can u0e =hat little intelligence and even le00 charm that 1 Bo00e00 to Blead
m- ca0e. 1 certainl- don>t =ant it =ith DeBut- Cit- ,ttorne- 3rma0" a0 clearl- 1 am outcla00ed
again0t her 0he =ill onl- moB uB the courtroom =ith me" that i0 o<viou0.
a0 he =a0 denied hi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight &o Coun0el Ieven i. De.endant didn>t Bre0erve thi0 .or
the record it0 onl- .air to Brovide him coun0el once thi0 Court mentioned that a Summar- ContemBt
!uling =a0 a di0tinct Bo00i<ilit- and De.endant cannot <e BreJudiced .or an- .ailure to 0o move a0 he
i0 terri.ied o. Kudge Na0h 2olme0 and it0 Ju0t not .air to e)Bect him to .unction in 2er 2onor>0
Bre0ence con0didering the enormou0 amount0 o. gravita0 0he <ring0 to the <ench... I thi0 Si)th
,mendment !ight to Coun0el i0 mentioned clearl- in the 2++$ 6imited Kuri0diction Court>0 Bench
Boo? .or Nevada Kudge0" along =ith the 2+1+ SuBBlement thereto" and =hile a ver- learned Kudge
li?e Kudge 2o=ard ma- cite to Scott v. 1llinoi0 .or 0uBBort that no 0uch right e)i0t0 =here
incarceration i0 not actuall- e..ectuated" it clearl- =a0 here" .ive da-0 =orth" comBlete =ith a L3++
<ill .or the under0igned>0 car <eing to=ed;" and .ile0 thi0 4otion &o Set ,0ide Kudge Na0h 2olme0
(e<ruar- 27th" 2+12 Summar- ContemBt 3rder and al0o to move .or a continuance =ith re0Bect to
the ne)t &rial date that =a0 mentioned =hile the under0igned =a0 in cu0tod-.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
,rger0inger v. 2amlin I4+7 5.S. 2%; e0ta<li0he0 that the right to the a00i0tance o. coun0el"
=hether retained or court aBBointed" i0 reAuired in all Bro0ecution0 =hich ma- re0ult in
imBri0onment" unle00 a comBlete (aretta canva0 ha0 <een comBleted and the reAue0t .or =aiving
coun0el i0 granted.
8hile there i0 a time and Blace" BerhaB0 .or 3rder0 .inding Summar- ContemBt under N!S
22.+3+...BerhaB0" the greate0t 0trength a Judge can demon0trate i0 the a<ilit- to 0ho= a little =ea?ne00"
to demon0trate 0omething other than ruling =ith an iron hand" to do 0omething other than cru0h an-
- 2 -
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER AND NOTICE OF AEA! OF S"MMAR# CONTEMT ORDER$ a%& MOTION FOR REC"SA! OF '"D(E )O*ARD$
NOTICE OF INS"FFICIENT# OF RECORD ON AEA!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
voice o. di00ent in hi0 court room li?e 4i?e Singletar- I.ormer line<ac?er .or the Chicago Bear0 in
the 19$+>0; =ould cru0h a running <ac? going through the M, gaBN. &o 0trangle out o. litigant0 the
.reedom to Oealou0l- adovocate on their o=n or another>0 <ehal. Iin the ca0e o. licen0ed attorne-0; i0
BerhaB0 the mo0t heinou0" 0ad" and ugl- thing a Judge could do. , Judge =hom demon0trate0 an
a<ilit- to over0ee that =hich ma?e0 him le00 than com.orta<le in hi0 courtroom" that =hich he doe0
not nece00aril- agree =ith" i0 a Judge 0ecure in hi0 a<ilitie0 and a=are o. the Bremium on re0traint and
Batience called .or in order .or a Judge and court to tran0cend .rom mere de<t collector .or the Cit-
,ttorne- to imBartial ar<iter o. .act and la=. &o demon0trate other=i0e ma- create an atmo0Bhere
=here court emBlo-ee0 over0teB their <ound0 and <egin to <ull- and hara00 tho0e 0ee?ing to acce00
Ju0tice" a true violation o. the tru0t in =hich the Bu<lic endo=0 0uch Bu<lic 0ervant0.
No=" aBBarentl-" 1nterim Court ,dmini0trator Ca00andra Kac?0on i0 0ee?ing to imBart order0
uBon litigant0 carr-ing color o. la= <- emailing them =ith her interBretation o. =hat an 3rder
BurBort0 to reAuire" even =here that 3rder rule0 on matter0 <e-ond the Juri0diction o. the Kudge and
or Court ma?ing the 3rder. &hat i0 the ca0e here. 40. Kac?0on 0ent the under0igned an email on or
a<out Kanuar- 1+
th
" 2+12 that imBermi00i<l- 0ee?0 to imBo0e uBon a litigant" and an attorne-" a
re0triction that =ould violate the 14
th
,mendment>0 EAual /rotection cla00 and .urther ma?e undul-
<urden0ome uBon the under0igned the right to .ile BaBer0 =ith the !eno 4uniciBal Court. &he
under0igned 0hould not <e a00igned a di..erent 0et o. rule0 .or .iling document0 than the .ar <etter
.unded !eno Cit- ,ttorne->0 3..ice i0.
!4C! !ule 3: ,uthoriOation to !eBre0ent ,ttorne-0 reBre0enting de.endant0 0hall
BromBtl- 0erve =ritten notice o. their aBBearance =ith the Cit- ,ttorne- and .ile the
0ame =ith the Court. ,n attorne- de0iring to =ithdra= .rom a ca0e 0hall .ile a motion
=ith the court and 0erve the Cit- ,ttorne- =ith the 0ame. &he court ma- rule on the
motion or 0et a hearing. !4C! !ule %: 4otion0 <- (ac0imile ,. ,ll rule0 and
Brocedure0 that aBBl- to motion0 .iled in Ber0on at the court 0hall al0o aBBl- to motion0
.iled <- .ac0imile" e)ceBt a0 other=i0e 0Beci.ied in thi0 rule. B. ,ll Ber0on0 are eligi<le
to u0e motion'<-'.ac0imile Brocedure0. C. ,ll motion0 .iled <- .ac0imile mu0t <e
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accomBanied <- a cover 0heet =hich mu0t include the Ber0onP0 name" addre00" .a)
num<er and teleBhone num<er. D. ,ll .ac0imile motion0 .iled <- an attorne- mu0t
include the attorne->0 name" the .irmP0 name" addre00" .a) num<er and teleBhone
num<er. 1n addition" the attorne-P0 0tate <ar num<er mu0t <e con0Bicuou0l- di0Bla-ed
on the cover 0heet. E. ,ll motion0 .iled <- .ac0imile mu0t <e accomBanied <- Broo. o.
0ervice.
8here0 De.endant =ent to great length0 to demon0trate to Kudge 2o=ard and the !4C that
he i0 indigent" he" aBBarentl-" i0 not Mallo=edN to <e 0o" 0o much 0o that thi0 Court =ent again0t the
Nevada Court o. 6imited Kuri0diction Bench Boo? o. 2++$ and it0 2+1+ SuBBlement in den-ing the
under0igned the hi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight &o Coun0el" 0et .orth e)Blicitl- in 0everal location0 in
the Bench Boo? and mandator- authorit- in the 5nited State0. ,rger0inger v. 2amlin" I4+7 5.S. 2%;.
Nevada N!C/ *+I<;I3; allo=0 a Bart- to move .or relie. .rom a Judgment =hich i0 void" and
=hile motion0 made under N!C/ *+I<; are generall- reAuired to H<e made =ithin a rea0ona<le timeH
and to <e adJudicated according to the di0trict court>0 di0cretion" thi0 i0 not true in the ca0e o. a void
Judgment. Nece00aril- a motion under thi0 Bart o. the rule di..er0 mar?edl- .rom motion0 under the
other clau0e0 o. !ule *+I<;. &here i0 no Aue0tion o. di0cretion on the Bart o. the court =hen a motion
i0 made under Qthi0 Bortion o. the !uleR. Nor i0 there an- reAuirement" a0 there u0uall- i0 =hen
de.ault Judgment0 are attac?ed under !ule *+I<;" that the moving Bart- 0ho= that he ha0 a
meritoriou0 de.en0e. Either a Judgment i0 void or it i0 valid. Determining =hich it i0 ma- =ell Bre0ent
a di..icult Aue0tion" <ut =hen that Aue0tion i0 re0olved" the court mu0t act accordingl-. B- the 0ame
to?en" there i0 no time limit on an attac? on a Judgment a0 void. . . . QERven the reAuirement that the
motion <e made =ithin a Hrea0ona<le time"H =hich 0eem0 literall- to aBBl- . . . cannot <e en.orced
=ith regard to thi0 cla00 o. motion. 5nder0tanda<l-" the Bartie0 =ere not attuned to our recent Kaco<0
deci0ion during oral argument. ,ccordingl-" it =a0 determined at that time to allo= the Bartie0 to
0uBBlement their <rie.0 in order to determine =ith certaint- =hether" in .act" no de.ault had <een
entered again0t :arcia Brior to the entr- o. the de.ault Judgment. :arcia>0 0uBBlemental material
- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0uBBlied additional evidence that no de.ault =a0 ever entered" including an a..idavit <- Clar? Count-
Court Cler? 6oretta Bo=man atte0ting that no 0uch .iling e)i0t0 in the ca0e .ile. !e0Bondent0 al0o
ac?no=ledged that no de.ault =a0 ever entered <ut argue in their 0uBBlemental <rie. that Kaco<0
0hould not <e aBBlied retroactivel-" noting that the de.ault Judgment at i00ue herein =a0 entered Brior
to our Kaco<0 deci0ion. &hi0 argument i0 =ithout merit. &he court in Kaco<0 determined" con0i0tent
=ith la= .rom other Juri0diction0" that the de.ault Judgment entered in Kaco<0 =a0 void. 8e
accordingl- ordered the di0trict court to grant relie. .rom the void Judgment" de0Bite the .act that the
ruling in Kaco<0 =a0" o. cour0e" Breceded <- entr- o. the de.ault Judgment again0t Kaco<0. 1. thi0 ca0e"
rather than Kaco<0" =ere <e.ore u0 a0 a ca0e o. .ir0t imBre00ion" =e =ould have reached the 0ame
conclu0ion. , void Judgment i0 void .or all BurBo0e0 and ma- not <e given li.e under a theor- <a0ed
uBon lac? o. legal Brecedent. :arcia v. 1deal SuBBl- Co." 11+ Nev. 493" $74 /.2d 7%2 INev.
%C19C1994;. &he de.ective 0ervice rendered the di0trict court>0 Ber0onal Juri0diction over :a00ett
invalid and the Judgment again0t her void. (or a Judgment to <e void" there mu0t <e a de.ect in the
court>0 authorit- to enter Judgment through either lac? o. Ber0onal Juri0diction or Juri0diction over
0u<Ject matter in the 0uit. /uBhal v. /uBhal" **9 /.2d 191 I1daho 19$3;. 1n /rice v. Dunn" 1+* Nev.
1++" 7$7 /.2d 7$% I199+;. 8e no= hold that the .iling o. a motion to 0et a0ide a void Judgment
Breviou0l- entered again0t the movant 0hall not con0titute a general aBBearance. See" e.g." Do<0on v.
Do<0on" 1+$ Nev. 34*" 349" $3+ /.2d 133*" 133$ I1992;. Nonethele00" 0ince the order =a0 void" a
Judgment <a0ed thereon =ould li?e=i0e <e void.. Nel0on v. Sierra Con0tr. CorB." 77 Nev. 334" 3*4
/.2d 4+2. 5nder N!C/ *+I<; a motion to 0et a0ide a void Judgment i0 not re0tricted to the 0i) month0>
Beriod 0Beci.ied in the rule. N!C/ %4Ia; Brovide0 that the =ord HJudgmentH a0 u0ed in the0e rule0
include0 an- order .rom =hich an aBBeal lie0. &here.ore there i0 no merit to aBBellant0> contention
that the motion to vacate the Judgment =a0 not timel- made. (o0ter v. 6e=i0" 7$ Nev. 33+" 372 /.2d
- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*79 INev. *C19C19*2;. , void Judgment i0 0u<Ject to collateral attac?9 a Judgment i0 void i. the
i00uing court lac?ed Ber0onal Juri0diction or 0u<Ject matter Juri0diction9 See 49 C.K.S. Kudgment0 S
4+1" at 792 I1947 G 0uBB. 1991;9 4* ,m.Kur.2d Kudgment0 SS *21'%* I19*9 G 0uBB. 1991;.
Kudge 2o=ard0 Decem<er 1*
th
" 2+11 3rder rule0 on matter0 out0ide Kudge 2o=ard0
Juri0diction and i0 there.ore void .or lac? o. Juri0diction. (urther" it i0 imBermi00i<le .or the !4C>0
Ca00andra Kac?0on to attemBt to re=rite !4C !ule0 Iand it i0 not clear =hethe 0he i0 doing thi0 on
her o=n accord or i. 0he ha0 <een in0tructed to do 0o a0 Kudge :ardner>0 ,dmini0trative ,00i0tant or
a0 the 1nterim Court ,dmini0trator" or in 0ome other caBacit-;. (urther" it i0 inaBBroBriate .or
Kac?0on to <e coB-ing !eno Cit- ,ttorne- Iand ver- recent .ormer co=or?er o. !4C>0 Kudge
:ardner; and !o<ert /uente0 I=ho recentl- a0?ed to <e granted a 4otion to 8ithdra= .rom
reBre0enting the under0igned <ecau0e doing 0o actuall- reAuired him to do 0ome legal =or?" and that
=a0 MhardN .or him; on her corre0Bondence" =hich related to a .iling in a tra..ic citation .or =hich
4!. /uente0 ha0 a<0olutel- no connection and =here 4r. 8ong had not -et made an aBBearance.
4r. 8ong did e)Bre00 a comBlete lac? o. concern to the under0igned =hen it =a0 reBorted to him that
a !/D 3..icer" Chri0 Carter" had admitted to the under0igned that the oBBo0ing coun0el in !KC
!E#2+11'++17+$ 0ummar- eviction .rom a commercial tenanc- la= o..ice =here non Ba-ment o.
rent =a0 not alleged Iin violation o. N!S 4+.2%3>0 e)Bre00 dictate again0t 0uch action0; had Baid
mone- to !/D 3..icer Carter to arre0t the under0igned Ia <ri<e;. 4r. 8ong indicated a comBlete
lac? o. con0ternation in thi0 regard and e)Bre00ed that he intended to conduct Oero .ollo= uB =ith
re0Bect to that trou<ling <reach o. the Bu<lic tru0t" even though" a0 a !eno Cit- ,ttorne-" 4r. 8ong
li?el- ha0 a dut- to do 0o and hi0 .ailure to =ill augur 0trongl- to=ard a .inding that the !eno Cit-
,ttorne- i0 lia<le .or an- !/D mi0conduct on a negligent hiring" training" and 0uBervi0ion claim and
- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that the !eno Cit- ,ttorne- i0 a=are o. and" in .act" rati.ie0 or endor0e0 0uch <ri<e ta?ing <- the !/D
.rom !ichard :. 2ill" E0A" oBBo0ing coun0el in that !KC eviction matter.
5nder .ederal la=" a0 =ell a0 the la= o. 0ome 0tate0" the mi0<ehavior that Bermit0 0ummar-
action mu0t in addition Bre0ent an imminent threat to the admini0tration o. Ju0tice9 it mu0t
immediatel- imBeril the Judge in the Ber.ormance o. hi0 or her Judicial dut- or con0titute an actual
o<0truction o. Ju0tice. 5.S. v. &urner" $12 (.2d 1%%2 I11th Cir. 19$7; Iattorne->0 Bo0ing o. 0ingle
Aue0tion to =itne00 a<out race o. certain individual0" though in clear violation o. ver<al court order"
did not 0o o<0truct Ju0tice a0 to ena<le court to re0ort to 0ummar- Brocedure .or contemBt under
(ederal !ule o. Criminal /rocedure 42I<;;9 1n re 2ollo=a-" 99% (.2d 1+$+ ID.C. Cir. 1993; Iattorne-
Bur0ued line0 o. Aue0tioning ruled out <- Judge;.8itne00>0 re.u0al to an0=er Aue0tion0 the court
order0 him to an0=er i0 contumaciou0 conduct =hich ma- 0u<Ject =itne00 to 0ummar- Buni0hment
.or criminal contemBt under Direct contemBt Ju0ti.-ing 0ummar- di0Bo0ition i0 con.ined to
e)ceBtional circum0tance0 involving act0 threatening the Judge" di0ruBting the hearing" or o<0tructing
court Broceeding0. !ule 42. 1n re Bo-den" *7% (.2d *43 I%th Cir. 19$2;. Becau0e 0ummar- contemBt
Brocedure .ill0 a need .or the immediate Benal vindication o. the dignit- o. the court" it0 aBBlication i0
con.ined to unu0ual 0ituation0 =here the court>0 in0tant action i0 nece00ar- to Brotect the Judicial
in0titution it0el.. 1n re :u0ta.0on" *19 (.2d 13%4" %$ ,.6.!. (ed. 1 I9th Cir. 19$+;" on reh>g" *%+ (.2d
1+17 I9th Cir. 19$1;.
N!S 22. +3+. Summar- Buni0hment o. contemBt committed in immediate vie= and
Bre0ence o. court9 a..idavit or 0tatement to <e .iled =hen contemBt committed out0ide
immediate vie= and Bre0ence o. court9 di0Auali.ication o. Judge:
M1. 1. a contemBt i0 committed in the immediate vie= and Bre0ence o. the court or Judge at
cham<er0" the contemBt ma- <e Buni0hed 0ummaril-. 1. the court or Judge 0ummaril- Buni0he0
a Ber0on .or a contemBt Bur0uant to thi0 0u<0ection" the court or Judge 0hall enter an order
that:
Ia; !ecite0 the .act0 con0tituting the contemBt in the immediate vie= and Bre0ence o. the court
or Judge9
I<; (ind0 the Ber0on guilt- o. the contemBt9 and
- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ic; /re0cri<e0 the Buni0hment .or the contemBt...N
1%4 ,6! 1227" Nece00it- and Su..icienc- o. 4a?ing and !ecording Su<0idiar- or Detailed
(inding0 SuBBorting ,dJudication o. Direct ContemBt.
Statute Broviding that in all ca0e0 o. contemBt ari0ing =ithout immediate vie= and Bre0ence o.
court" Judge o. court in =ho0e contemBt de.endant i0 alleged to <e" 0hall not Bre0ide at 0uch
trial over o<Jection o. de.endant" i0 con0titutional. N.C.6.1929" S $943. 4cCormic? v. Si)th
Kudicial Di0t. Court in and .or 2um<oldt Count-" 19%+" 21$ /.2d 939" *7 Nev. 31$. ContemBt
(or BurBo0e0 o. 0tatute governing 0ummar- contemBt Broceeding0 .or direct contemBt committed
in Judge>0 Bre0ence" =hich reAuire0 court to Menter an order"N =hile a trial court>0 oral
contemBt order i0 immediatel- en.orcea<le" a =ritten order including the 0tatute>0 reAuired element0
mu0t <e BromBtl- entered. 2ou0ton v. Eighth Kudicial Di0t. Court e) rel. Count- o.
Clar?" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44.
,BBroBriate remed- .or attorne- =ho had <een .ound in direct contemBt o. court in divorce
Broceeding in =hich he reBre0ented =i.e" =here contemBt order had <een .ound to <e in0u..icient
<- SuBreme Court" in that it did not contain a 0u..icient 0tatement concerning =hat conduct
=a0 held to <e contemBtuou0" =a0 to Bermit trial court to enter amended order" given that
SuBreme Court>0 oBinion addre00ed i00ue o. .ir0t imBre00ion and announced 0tandard .or content0
o. =ritten contemBt order. 2ou0ton v. Eighth Kudicial Di0t. Court e) rel. Count- o.
Clar?" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44.
Kudge 2o=ard Summar- ContemBt 3rder relie0 in Bart on Hcontinuing line0 o. inAuir- a.ter
told <- the Court not to do 0o...H ho=ever an- 0uch alleged in0tance0 o. thi0 are e)Blained a=a- <-
the .act that an- 0uch Aue0tion0 =here not Bo0ed to Brove the truth o. the matter a00erted <ut rather
.or other Bermi00i<le BurBo0e0 Iand thi0 =a0 Bointed out to the Court at trial;. (urther" .or Kudge
2o=ard to rule that it i0 not relevant =hether 8al'4art>0 ,00et /rotection team had ver<all-
- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
threatened the accu0ed or other=i0e indicated the- =ould retaliate again0t him .or .ilming a
documentar- related to 8al'4art>0 continual Bractice o. l-ing to cu0tomer0 a<out their !eturn /olic-
and 0electivel- en.orcing it" de0Bite it0 term0 <eing Bart o. a contract <et=een the retailer and
con0umer0" it Blain error.
, =ritten 0ummar- contemBt order" i00ued Bur0uant to 0tatute governing 0ummar- contemBt
Broceeding0 .or direct contemBt committed in Judge>0 Bre0ence" mu0t 0et .orth 0Beci.ic .act0
concerning the conduct .ound to <e contemBtuou0. 2ou0ton v. Eighth Kudicial Di0t. Court e) rel.
Count- o. Clar?" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44. Kudge 2o=ard0 3rder i0 o. the Hchec? the <o)H
variet-" on a BreBrinted .orm" 0eemingl- ta?en .rom the Bench Boo?" containing mere conclu0or- and
circular 0tatement0 a<out the BurBorted contemBt and in no =a- 0ati0.ie0 the a<ove 0tandard. 1ndeed"
Kudge 2o=ard doe0 not 0Beci.- =hat Hline0 o. inAuir-H =ere continued" nor i0 it clear ho= a Bro 0e
de.endant denied hi0 Si)th ,mendment !ight &o Coun0el could rea0ona<l- ?no= =hat i0 reAuired o.
him to comBl- =ith Kudge 2o=ard0 vague and menacing contemBt Bronoucement0 =hile al0o
Oealou0l- advocating on the de.endant>0 <ehal..
8ritten 0ummar- contemBt order .inding attorne- .or =i.e in divorce Broceeding in direct
contemBt o. court .ailed to indicate =hat Barticular comment0 <- attorne- =ere held to <e
contemBtuou0" and" thu0" order =a0 in0u..icient" under 0tatute governing 0ummar- contemBt
Broceeding0 .or direct contemBt committed in Judge>0 Bre0ence. 2ou0ton v. Eighth Kudicial Di0t.
Court e) rel. Count- o. Clar?" 2++*" 13% /.3d 12*9" 122 Nev. %44.
3ther than indicating the de.endant 0aid M8o=N" Kudge 2o=ard>0 3rder doe0 little to comBl-
=ith the a<ove 0tandard. (urther" Kudge 2o=ard ma?e0 allegation0 o. MlaughterN" ho=ever" and thi0
goe0 to the Mevident imBartialit-C4otion .or !ecu0alN" Kudge 2o=ard 0eemed to go to great length0 to
0tri?e .rom the record the .act that &homa0 (rontino" 8al'4art ,00et /rotection ,00ociate and
- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=itne00 .or the Cit- o. !eno" =a0 continuall- 0mir?ing and laughing on the 0tand" Barticularl- =hile
he =a0 committing BerJur-. Kudge 2o=ard ma?e0 no 0Beci.ic indication a0 to =hat the under0igned
0uBBo0edl- laughed a<out" or at =hat time o. the Broceeding Ithe audio o. =hich i0 recorded and
Bre0erved <- the !4C>0 (or &he !ecord 0-0tem;. Even i. MlaughterN =a0 Bre0ent" it i0 not Ber 0e
contemBtuou0 and Kudge 2o=ard doe0 not ma?e clear ho= hi0 attemBt to Brohi<it 0uch allo=0 .or a
de.endant to Oealou0l- advocate on hi0 o=n <ehal." or =hether it i0 ever Bermi00i<le" or even a 0?ill.ul
trial tactic" .or a litigant to engage in MlaughterN. !eall-" =hat Kudge 2o=ard 0eem0 to =ant the mo0t
i0 .or tho0e de.endant0 that he =i0he0 to .ind guilt- to la- do=n and die a death o. 0ort0 in hi0
courtroom" and to than? the !4C .or it0 =i0e cr-Bt'?eeBing.
!egardle00" =ith re0Bect to Kudge 2o=ard>0" Decem<er 1*" 2+11 3rder" it attemBt0 to rule on
matter0 .ar <e-ond the Juri0diction accorded to Kudge 2o=ard. &he email addre00
Mrenomunirecord0Treno.govN i0 held out to the Bu<lic in a num<er o. in0tance0. See" E)hi<it 1:
Kanuar- 1+
th
" 2+12 email .rom !4C 1nterim Court ,dmini0trator Ca00andra Kac?0on =ith ,ttached
Decem<er 1*
th
" 2+11 3rder o. Kudge 2o=ard. &he 3rder read0: MDe.endant Coughlin .or=arded a
communication to Kudge 2o=ard>0 Ber0onal electronic mail account. De.endant Coughlin i0 =arned
that he mu0t cca0e and de0i0t .urthcr e'mail communication =ith Kudge 2o=ard" hi0 0tal&or another
emBlo-ee o. the !eno 4uniciBal Court.N 2o=ever" it i0 not clear at all that that email addre00 i0 a
MBer0onalN email addre00. &he email addre00 gate=a- i0 that o. one <elonging to the Cit- o. !eno"
not to a Brivate citiOen" and there.ore it can hardl- <e 0aid to <e a MBer0onalN email addre00" li?e
2otmail" or :mail addre00. 1t i0 an email addre00 Brovided to a Bu<lic 0ervant" an elected or
aBBointed o..icial" to <e u0ed in the cour0e o. o..icial <u0ine00 and held out to the Bu<lic a0 a valid
mean0 .or contacting that o..icial. 2o= an email i0 an- di..erent than a .a) i0 0omething not at all
clear. Both mean0 o. corre0Bondence convert the communication to a 0erie0 o. 1>0 and +>0 .or the
- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BurBo0e o. tran0mitting date in a digital .orm. &o hold the0e mean0 o. communication are
.undamentall- di..erent" i0 a di0tinction =ithout a di..erence and ar<itar- and caBriciou0. &o reAuired
litigant0 to acceBt 0uch Bronouncement0 =here the- are not 0uBBorted <- 0ound rationale or Bolic- i0
to engage in t-rann-" 0omething .or =hich the ,merican Bu<lic ha0 never had much o. a ta0te.
&he Decem<er 1*
th
" 2+11 3rder goe0 on to hold that: M1& 1S 2E!EB7 3!DE!ED that
De.endant Coughlin 0hall not communicate via email =ith Kudge 2o=ard" hi0 0ta.. or another
emBlo-ee o. the !eno 4uniciBal Court.N (ir0t" 1t i0 not clear =hether a tran0criBtioni0t recommended
or reAuired <- the !4C i0 a M!4C emBlo-eeN. 1t i0 not clear i0 4ar0hal !oBer i0 an !4C
emBlo-ee" or an emBlo-ee o. 8a0hoe Count-" or the Cit- o. !eno. &o <e a valid 3rder 0uch that a
ContemBt 3rder ma- i00ue .rom a violation o. it reAuire0 that the 3rder <e 0u..icientl- detailed and
clear 0uch that one could <e rea0ona<l- 0aid to have an under0tanding o. =hat i0 reAuired o. him to
comBl- =ith it. &he under0igned 0ee?0 clari.ication o. the 3rder in thi0 regard. (urther" the 3rder
doe0 not contain an- language BurBorting to ma?e inaBBlica<le to the under0igned the right enJo-ed
<- all other litigant0 <e.ore the !4C" ie" that contained in !4C! %:
!4C! !ule %: 4otion0 <- (ac0imile ,. ,ll rule0 and Brocedure0 that aBBl- to
motion0 .iled in Ber0on at the court 0hall al0o aBBl- to motion0 .iled <- .ac0imile"
e)ceBt a0 other=i0e 0Beci.ied in thi0 rule. B. ,ll Ber0on0 are eligi<le to u0e motion'
<-'.ac0imile Brocedure0. C. ,ll motion0 .iled <- .ac0imile mu0t <e accomBanied <-
a cover 0heet =hich mu0t include the Ber0onP0 name" addre00" .a) num<er and
teleBhone num<er. D. ,ll .ac0imile motion0 .iled <- an attorne- mu0t include the
attorne->0 name" the .irmP0 name" addre00" .a) num<er and teleBhone num<er. 1n
addition" the attorne-P0 0tate <ar num<er mu0t <e con0Bicuou0l- di0Bla-ed on the
cover 0heet. E. ,ll motion0 .iled <- .ac0imile mu0t <e accomBanied <- Broo. o.
0ervice.
&he under0igned i0 indigent. &hat might <e hard .or a Bu<lic o..icial ma?ing L1$+"+++ a -ear
a.ter <ene.it0 to conceBtualiOe" <ut =hat it mean0 it that reAuiring him to ta?e an hour out o. hi0 =or?
da- ever- time he =ant0 to .ile 0omething =ith the !4C i0 undul- <urden0ome" Barticularl- =here
- 11 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the !eno Cit- ,ttorne- acting a0 oBBo0ing coun0el i0 not under a 0imilar directive Iand =here that
!eno Cit- ,ttorne- ma?ing =ell over L1++"+++ a.ter <ene.it0 are con0idered a0 =ell;. 1t 0eem0 the
Court under0tand0 thi0" and that i0 =h- onl- email =a0 e)Bre00l- Brohi<ited in the 3rder. (urther" the
3rder =ould 0eem to <e =i0el- curtailed to onl- matter0 relating to the ca0e in =hich i0 =a0 rendered.
7et" 40. Kac?0on>0 email 0eem0 to caBitulate and e)tend uBon Kudge 2o=ard>0 3rder <- including the
dicate that the under0igned cea0e Barta?ing in the .iling <- .ac0imile e)Bre00l- allo=ed <- !4C! %"
and .urther" !4C 1nterim Court ,dmini0trator Kac?0on 0ee?0 to add to the 3rder and e)tend it0
alread- over<road reach. 1n doing 0o" Kac?0on i0 engaging in imBermi00i<le conduct 0imilar to that
e)hi<ited earlier in thi0 matter <- Kudge 2o=ard>0 Kudicial ,00i0tant #eronica 6oBeO. 40. 6oBeO
re.u0ed to Brovide a coB- o. the Kudgement and 3rder o. Conviction in 11 C! 2217* to Coughlin
Iactuall- 0he lied to Coughlin 0a-ing 0he =ould .a) him a coB- o. it Ithough 0he never did; a.ter
<erating Coughlin .or Mlo0ing him chance to get a coB-N at the conclu0ion o. the 11C3+C11 &rial =hen
!4C 4ar0hal0 demanded the under0igned 0ign 0ome document0 Brior to having a chance to revie=
them" =hereuBon the0e 4ar0hal0 angril- too? a=a- the document0" 0mir?ing a<out ho= the- =ould
MJu0t But that -ou re.u0edN to acceBt the 0ervice thereo.. 2o=ever" uBon <eing relea0e .rom =hat ma-
=ell <e the one and onl- time IhoBe.ull- ever" Ba0t or .uture; that an attorne- in thi0 0tate" or an-
other" =a0 0ummaril- .orced to 0Bend three da-0 in incarceration i0 i0 clear .rom Jail BroBert- record0
that Coughlin =a0 not Brovided an- coB- o. an- Kudgement o. Conviction or 3rder .rom the
Novem<er 3+
th
" 2+11 &rial in the !4C. Clearl-" i. the under0igned i0 in handcu..0" it i0 not .or the
under0igned to decide =hether or not a Biece o. BaBer =ill travel =ith him to Jail and <e there =hen
he i0 relea0ed. &he !4C>0 conduct in 0u<0eAuentl- re.u0ing to Brovide or other=i0e 0erved a coB- o.
that 3rder i0 e)tremel- trou<ling and re.lect0 Boorl- uBon the !4C. &he 0ame can <e 0aid .or the
0ome e)tremel- long time it too? the !4C to Brovide the under0igned =ith an audio coB- o. the
- 12 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recording o. the &rial and the indication0 !4C .iling o..ice 0ta.. gave the under0igned at .ir0t that he
=ould not <e a..oreded an- acce00 to 0uch an recording" <ut rather" that he could Ba- 0ome e)or<inant
0ome to have one Barticular court reBorter or tran0criBtioni0t .avored <- the !4C I/am 6ongioni; to
tran0cri<e the recording0. 40. 6ongioni" =hile driving and tal?ing on the Bhone" actuall- hung uB on
the under0igned =hen hi0 an0=er0 to her attemBt0 to cro00 e)amine him =ith regard to =hen he .iled
hi0 Notice o. ,BBeal and =hen he =a0 0erved thi0 or that =ere not met =ith her aBBroval. 6ongioni
0u<0eAuentl- .ailed to return an- Bhone call0 or =ritten corre0Bondence .rom the udner0igned.
During thi0 three da- incarceration =a0 denied a 0ingle Bhone call or tier time <- Sheri..>0
DeButie0" re0ulting in much BreJudice to hi0 client>0 ca0e0" .or =hich Kudge 2o=ard indicated he =a0
M0addenedN" though he .ailed to allo= .or an- mea0ure0 to <e ta?en to avoid 0uch BreJudice occurring
to tho0e =ho vote on =hether or not he =ill <e reelected" 0hould he run oBBo0ed ne)t time" in contra0t
to hi0 la0t election; .or 0a-ing M8o=N amid0t 0a-ing M7e0" Sir"N and M7our 2onorN a<out .our
hundred time0 throughout the cour0e o. a 0i) hour trial" the denouement o. =hich =a0 aBBarentl-
imBortant enough to ?eeB uB=ard0 o. 0i) court emBlo-ee0 =or?ing until aBBro)imatel- 9 Bm at night"
receiving overtime =age0 in the Broce00 a0 a time in =hich the econom- o. !eno i0 mar?edl-
challenged and the <udget o. the !eno 4uniciBal court i0 0uch that it ha0 ta?en to la-ing o.. Court
0ta.. and cutting their Ba- Ithough elected o..icial0 are e)emBt .rom 0uch mea0ure0; in addition to
curtailing the hour0 the Court i0 oBen to the Bu<lic on (rida-0 to hal. a da-.
1t i0 in0tructive to comBare Kac?0on>0 interBretation o. the Kudge 2o=ard>0 3rder" and to
con0ider to e)tent to =hich 0he ma- <e acting in a Judicial caBacit- Iunle00 thi0 Court =ill Brovide
0ome indication o. =hether Kac?0on>0 email =a0 done at the <ehe0t o. an- o. the !4C Kudge0;.
8herea0 Kudge 2o=ard0 12C1*C11 3rder hold0: M1& 1S 2E!EB7 3!DE!ED that Defendant
Coughlin 0hall not communicate via cmail =ith Kudge 2o=ard" hi0 0ta.. or another emBlo-ee o.
- 13 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the !eno 4uniciBal CourtN" Kac?0on>0 1C1+C12 email to Coughlin e)tend0 the reach o. that 3rder"
directing Coughlin thu0: H1 have <een in.ormed that -ou continue to contact !eno 4uniciBal Court
0ta.. and attemBt to fie document0 via e'mail. &hi0 i0 in violation o. the 3rder i00ued <- Kudge
2o=ard on Decem<er 1*" 2+11" !"ic" #$o"i%it& 'ou f$om contacting !eno 4uniciBal Court 0ta..
via e'mail I0ee attached;. An' co$$e&#ondence 'ou !i&" t"e cou$t to con&ide$ and any documents
that you wish to file !it" t"e cou$t mu&t %e fied t"$ou(" t"e Reno Munici#a Cou$t Ce$)*&
Office+ ,ia U-S- mai+ me&&en(e$ &e$,ice o$ in #e$&on.N
(ir0t" Kudge 2o=ard>0 3rder indicate0 that it aBBlie0 to MDe.endant CoughlinN" not citiOen
Coughlin. &hu0" it doe0 not aBBl- to action0 ta?en <- Coughlin not =ithin the 0coBe o. hi0
aBBearance a0 MDe.endant CoughlinN =ithin that one Barticular matter 11 C! 2217*. 1. citiOen
Coughlin =ant0 to .ile 0omething related to a tra..ic citation" Kudge 2o=ard>0 Decem<er 1*" 2+11
3rder ha0 not aBBlication. (or Kac?0on to MruleN other=i0e indicate0 0he lac?0 an aBBreciation .or the
Judicial 0?ill and temBerance Kudge 2o=ard ha0 develoBed 0ince ta?ing the <ench in 199$. 8hile
0omeone =ithout Kudge 2o=ard>0 acumen and e)Berti0e ma- BurBort to rule on matter0 .ar a.ield
.rom the Juri0diction the la= ha0 ve0ted them =ith" Kudge 2o=ard =ould not" 1 <elieve" a0 he ta?e0
the tru0t the citiOen0 o. Nevada have <e0to=ed uBon him .ar to 0eriou0l- to 0o rec?le00l- e)ceed the
0coBe o. that Juri0diction. &he emBlo-ee0 o. the !4C Iincluding 4ar0hal 4entOel" #eronica 6oBeO"
and Ca00andra Kac?0on; need to 0toB em<arra00ing the !4C Kudge0" =ith the a<u0ive" overreaching
aBBroach the- ta?e to carr-ing out their dutie0 and in relating to the Bu<lic. 8hile their <ehavior ma-
<e comBletel- acceBta<le in the Brivate 0ector" the- have a hire calling in <eing Bu<lic 0ervant0
=or?ing in a court o. la=" =here the eAual and mea0ured di0Ben0ation o. Ju0tice mu0t <e delivered in
a manner that" at all time0" comBort0 =ith traditional notice0 o. due Broce00 and 0u<0tantial Ju0tice.
- 14 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&he under0igned =a0 given e)Bre00 Bermi00ion <- !4C (iling 3..icer SuBervi0or Donna
Ballard to .ile document0 <- email &hi0 =a0 reAue0ted in light o. the under0igned <elie. that .iling <-
.a) ma- unnece00aril- ta) the !4C>0 .a) machine and or line. (urther" Kudge 2o=ard0 12C1*C11
3rder onl- BurBort0 to rule on the BroBriet- o. Coughlin>0 attemBt0 to Mcommunicate via cmail =ith
Kudge 2o=ard" hi0 0ta.. or another emBlo-ee o. the !eno 4uniciBal CourtN. 1t doe0 not Ia0
Kac?0on>0 email BurBort0 to interBet that 3rder to rule; that Many documents that you wish to file !it"
t"e cou$t mu&t %e fied t"$ou(" t"e Reno Munici#a Cou$t Ce$)*& Office+ ,ia U-S- mai+
me&&en(e$ &e$,ice o$ in #e$&on.N ,n attemBt to communicate i0 di..erent .rom an attemBt to file a
document =ith the court. (urther" communicating =ith MKudge 2o=ard" hi0 0ta.. or another
emBlo-ee o. the !eno 4uniciBal CourtN i0 di..erent than communicating 0omething to or .iling
0omething =ith a general email addre00" !eno4uni!ecord0T!eno.gov" that i0 not attached
0Beci.icall- to MKudge 2o=ard" hi0 0ta.." or another emBlo-eeN Iin the =a- Kudge 2o=ard mention0
hi0 o=n email addre00 a0 hi0 MBer0onalN email addre00;" =hich i0 held out to the Bu<lic in numerou0
0etting0 a0 the =a- to contact the !eno 4uniciBal Court or Cit- o. !eno Iincluded among0t the0e i0
the method .or reAue0ting record0 .rom the Cit- o. !eno" and the !eno Cit- ,ttorne->0 3..ice" not
Ju0t the !eno 4uniciBal Court;. 1n 0o attemBting to e)tend Kudge 2o=ard>0 3rder" Kac?0on
imBermi00i<l- attemBt0 to a00ert an uneAual aBBlication o. !4C! % uBon Coughlin" a deBrivation o.
eAual Brotection and due Broce00 under the la= that could argua<l- get the !4C and Kac?0on her0el.
held Ber0onall- lia<le .or violation0 o. the under0igned>0 civil right0. 2o=ever" the Cit- o. !eno =ill
<e lia<le i. there i0 a cu0tom and Bolic- in Blace that encourage0 con0titutional violation0 and that
Bolic- i0 the 0tandard oBerating Brocedure o. the !eno 4uniciBal Court or =here the !4C had
?no=ledge o. Kac?0on>0 deBrivation o. Coughlin>0 civil right0 or other=i0e engaged in negligent
hiring" training" and 0uBervi0ion o. emBlo-ee0 0uch a Kac?0on =ith re0Bect to 0uch deBrviation0.
- 15 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6i?e=i0e" =ith the 8a0hoe Count- Sheri..>0 3..ice and the Count-. See :illette v. Delmore" 979 (.20
1342" 1347 I9th Cir.1992;.
4otivational in0Biration .or the !4C and 4entOel" 6oBeO" and Kac?0on can <e .ound in
6iBBi0 v. /eter0" 112 Nev. 1++$" 921 /.2d 124$ I199*;:
M&he Judgment a=arding .ee0 in thi0 ca0e imBo0e0 uBon t=o Ju0tice0> court0 and 0even
Ju0tice0 o. the Beace an o<ligation to Ba- to the tenant0> attorne-0 the 0um o.
L1$"*93.%+. &hi0 Judgment doe0 Bre0ent a Bro<lem =hen =e 0tart to thin? a<out ho=
the0e Bu<lic o..icial0 and t=o court0 o. la= might go a<out allocating the o<ligation o.
L1$"*93.%+. 1t =ould not aBBear that the court0 them0elve0 are 0u<Ject to e)ecution
Broce009 and" there.ore" the .ee" i. it =ere going to <e Baid" =ould have to <e Baid <-
the individual Ju0tice0" =ho =ould have to Ba-" i. the matter =ere handled .airl-"
L2"*7+.%+ each. &he Ju0tice0> Judgment o<ligation to Ba- attorne-0> .ee0 i0 <a0ed I1; on
their having .ollo=ed a Brocedural rule IKC!C/ 1+*; enacted <- thi0 court and I2; on
their having made 0everal erroneou0 Judicial deci0ion0. 8e he0itate to get into the
thorn- Bro<lem0 Bre0ented <- thi0 Judgment" Bro<lem0 relating to e)ecution uBon
Bu<lic BroBert-" relating to o..icial immunit- and Judicial immunit- and 0ome other
0imilar Bro<lem0 that attend the en.orcement o. 0uch a Judgment...N 6iBBi0 v. /eter0"
112 Nev. 1++$" 921 /.2d 124$ I199*;: M1n their action challenging Ju0tice court0>
Bractice o. den-ing aBBeal0 to di0trict court in 0ummar- eviction action0" tenant0 did
not allege that the- =ere deBrived o. .ederal right0" and there.ore the- could not claim
attorne- .ee0 under .ederal civil right0 0tatute. 42 5.S.C.,. SS 19$3" 19$$.N
De.endant ma- ultimatel- <e .orced to <e 0o alleging 0uch a deBrivation and or claim 0uch
attorne->0 .ee09 See, also, Cheung v. Eighth Kudicial Di0t. Court e) rel. Count- o. Clar?" 124 /.3d
%%+" %%2" 121 Nev. $*7" $*9 I2++%;9 Schneider v. El?o Count- Sheri..>0 DeBt." 17 (.SuBB.2d 11*2"
11*% I199$;9 :.C. 8allace" 1nc. v. Eighth Kudicial Di0t. Court o. State" e) rel. Count- o. Clar?" 2*2
/.3d 113%" 114+U" 127 Nev. ,dv. 3B. *4" *4U I2+11;.
40. Ballard actuall- agreed =ith thi0 a00e00ment and than?ed the under0igned .or the
con0ideration demon0trated. &o the e)tent Kudge 2o=ard doe0 not =i0h .or the under0igned to .ile
Ia0 oBBo0ed to Ju0t communicate; <- email Iand it0 not clear that the 3rder BurBort0 to rule on
0ituation0 out0ide o. the ca0e in =hich it =a0 made" de0Bite the imBlication>0 o. Kac?0on>0 email;" the
- 16 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
under0igned =ill" o. cour0e" re0Bect.ull- comBl- =ith that dictate" e0Beciall- to the e)tent that it i0 not
e)Bre00l- Bermitted <- !4C !ule0 Ithough the di0tinction <et=een .ac0imile and email i0 not al=a-0
the cleare0t and =here .ac0imile 0eem0 to di0advantage tho0e =ithout the <udget to have a 0eBarate
Bhone line to run a .a) machine" etc.;. 2o=ever" the !ecord on ,BBeal in thi0 matter i0 de.icient in
0everal re0Bect0 and the under0igned a0?0 that it <e corrected. &o =it" Brior to 0uch time a0 the
e)Bre00 Bermi00ion to 0o .ile <- email could rea0ona<l- <e 0aid to have <een =ithdra=n" the
under0igned .ile numerou0 document0 =ith the !4C. 2o=ever" not all o. tho0e are re.lected in the
!ecord on ,BBeal (urther" in that !ecord" the M.our Bage0 Ber BageN attachment0 to the 12C13C11
.iling are illegi<le" though the under0igned .ile a comBletel- legi<le one Bage Ber Bage ver0ion via
email =ith the !4C and .eel0 that that legi<le ver0ion 0hould <e included in the !ecord on ,BBeal.
&he M.our Bage Ber BageN ver0ion =a0 .iled in hard coB- Ion toB o. the 0ame <eing .iled the night
<e.ore via email; in an a<undance o. caution given the imBortance o. the .iling Ia" BerhaB0"
Juri0dictional Notice o. ,BBeal" and 0hould the Bermi00ion to .ile <- email not <e honored" the
under0igned =ould have <een 0everel- BreJudiced....; &he under0igned .iled the M.our Bage Ber BageN
ver0ion o. the E)hi<it0 to that 12C12C11 .iling in that .orm <ecau0e he lac? the mone- to <u- the BaBer
and in? nece00ar- to Brint tho0e voluminou0 attachment0 out in the one Bage Ber Bage 0t-le that =ould
have <een Bre.era<le. E)hi<it %: ,ll email0 .rom ZachCoughlinThotmail.com to
!eno4uni!ecord0T!eno.gov .rom 1+C4C11 to Bre0ent9 citing to attached Bd. .iling0 that 0hould <e
included in the !ecord on ,BBeal" -et are not in 0ome in0tance0.
,BBeala<ilit- o. contemBt adJudication or conviction. 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in
197+;9 S 12QaR :enerall-V!ule o. aBBeala<ilit- QCumulative SuBBlementR ContemBt Broceeding0
not characteriOed a0 criminal or civil have .reAuentl- <een held or recogniOed to <e aBBeala<le in the
a<0ence o. 0tatute0 other than tho0e generall- ma?ing .inal deci0ion0 aBBeala<le.5S 1n re !-an" %3$
- 17 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(.2d 43%" 7* 2 5.S. &a) Ca0. ICC2; / 9%1$" 3$ ,.(.&.!.2d %4%2 ID.C. Cir. 197*; ,la 5hl0 v 5hl0
I19$9" ,la ,BB; %%1 So 2d 1+*% E) Barte Bo-?in I1994" ,la Civ ,BB; *%* So 2d $21 ,la0?a
:illette v Co..er I1912; 4 ,la0?a *22 IrecogniOing rule; Cal 6aBella v @ai0er (oundation 2ealth
/lan" 1nc. I1977; 72 Cal ,BB 3d 499" 13$ Cal !Btr 212 (or Cali.ornia ca0e0" 0ee S 1*" in.ra Colo 2ill
v Boatright I1994" Colo ,BB; $9+ /2d 1$+" reh den ISeB 1%" 1994; and cert gr I(e< 2+" 199%; DC 33
,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 17$ 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 197+; (or Di0trict o. Colum<ia
ca0e0" 0ee S 3QaR" 0uBra (la State e) rel. /ear0on v Kohn0on I(la ,BB; 334 So 2d %4 (or (lorida ca0e0"
0ee S *QaR" 0uBra :a 4anning v 4NC Con0umer Di0count Co. I1994; 212 :a ,BB $24" 442 SE2d
919" 94 (ulton Count- D ! 1442 (or :eorgia ca0e0" 0ee S 1%" in.ra 1ll /eoBle e) rel. 2inc?le- v
/ir.en<rin? I1$79; 9* 1ll *$ IrecogniOing rule; E) Barte Smith I1$$*; 117 1ll *3" 7 NE *$3
IrecogniOing rule; 6e0ter v Ber?o=itO I1$$$; 12% 1ll 3+7" 17 NE 7+* IrecogniOing rule; /eoBle v
:il<ert I1917; 2$1 1ll *19" 11$ NE 19* 2ill v &homa0 B. Ke..er- Co. I192+; 292 1ll 49+" 127 NE 124
/eoBle e) rel. ,ndre=0 v 2a00a?i0 I19%%; * 1ll 2d 4*3" 129 NE2d 9 But 0ee /eoBle e) rel. :eneral
4otor0 CorB. v Bua I19*7; 37 1ll 2d 1$+" 22* NE2d *" in.ra. ,nd 0ee 1llinoi0 ca0e0 limiting revie= to
Aue0tion o. a<u0e o. di0cretion" S 13" in.ra. 8a0te 4anagement" 1nc. v 1nternational SurBlu0 6ine0
1n0. Co. I1991; 144 1ll 2d 17$" 1*1 1ll Dec 774" %79 NE2d 322 ,lmgren v !u0hW/re0<-terianWSt.
6u?e>0 4edical Ctr. I1994; 1*2 1ll 2d 2+%" 2+% 1ll Dec 147" *42 NE2d 12*4" mod and reh den INov
1%" 1994; !o<in0on v /eoBle I19+*; 129 1ll ,BB %27 @ell- v Chicago" B. G X. !. Co. I1919; 213 1ll
,BB 29* IrecogniOing rule; /eoBle e) rel. !u0ch v @irgi0 I193*; 2$7 1ll ,BB 37$" 4 NE2d $94
&egtme-er v &egtme-er I1937; 292 1ll ,BB 434" 11 NE2d *%7 IrecogniOing rule; /eoBle e) rel.
!u0ch v (erro I1942; 313 1ll ,BB 2+2" 39 NE2d 7+7 @emen- v S?orch I19%9; 22 1ll ,BB 2d 1*+" 1%9
NE2d 4$9 4a-=ood v Kac?0on I19*3; 42 1ll ,BB 2d 29" 19+ NE2d %93 @och v 4ettler I19*4; 49 1ll
,BB 2d 2%1" 199 NE2d 417 !e 3cto<er 19$% :rand Kur- I19$7" 10t Di0t; 1%4 1ll ,BB 3d 2$$" 1+7 1ll
- 18 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dec 342" %+7 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 179 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 197+; NE2d *"
aBB gr I1ll; 113 1ll Dec 3+4" %1% NE2d 113 and vacated on other ground0 I19$$; 124 1ll 2d 4**" 12%
1ll Dec 29%" %3+ NE2d 4%3 !e 4arriage o. !-an I19$9" 2d Di0t; 1$$ 1ll ,BB 3d *79" 13* 1ll Dec 1"
%44 NE2d 4%4 &e0tin v Dre-er 4edical Clinic I1992; 23$ 1ll ,BB 3d $$3" 179 1ll Dec %*" *+% NE2d
1+7+" aBB gr 149 1ll 2d **1" 1$3 1ll Dec $72" *12 NE2d %24 1n re 4arriage o. Dieter I199%" 10t Di0t;
271 1ll ,BB 3d 1$1" 2+7 1ll Dec $4$" *4$ NE2d 3+4 /eoBle e) rel. 2a=thorne v 2amilton" 9 1ll ,BB
3d %%1" 292 NE2d %*3 4d Drone- v Drone- I199%; 1+2 4d ,BB *72" *%1 ,2d 41% 4ich /eoBle e)
rel. /ort 2uron G :. !. Co. v Kone0 I1$7*; 33 4ich 3+3 2aine0 v 2aine0 I1$7*; 3% 4ich 13$ !e
Bi00ell I1$79; 4+ 4ich *3 IrecogniOing rule; !o00 v !o00 I1$$1; 47 4ich 1$%" 1+ N8 193 See
/eoBle v Den 5-l I1949; 323 4ich 49+" 3% N82d 4*7. But 0ee 4ichigan ca0e0 limiting revie= to
Aue0tion o. a<u0e o. di0cretion" S 13" in.ra. 4inn (or 4inne0ota ca0e0" 0ee S $QaR" 0uBra 4i00 (or
4i00i00iBBi ca0e0" 0ee S 1%" in.ra 4o (or 4i00ouri ca0e0" 0ee S 3Q<R" 0uBra Ne< Dunning v &allman
I1993; 244 Ne< 1" %+4 N82d $% N7 8atrou0 v @earne- I1$$+; 79 N7 49* IrecogniOing rule;
Strong v 8e0tern :a0 G (uel Co. I19+4; 177 N7 4++" *9 NE 721 IrecogniOing rule; @ing v ,0hle-
I19+4; 179 N7 2$1" 72 NE 1+* !e 2a-=ard I1$99; 44 ,BB Div 2*%" *+ N7S *3* IrecogniOing rule;
4oore v 4oore I191+; 141 ,BB Div %32" 12* N7S 412 !e Ba?er I1$%%; 11 2o= /r 41$
IrecogniOing rule;9 !e /erc- I1$*$; 2 Dal- %3+ IrecogniOing rule;9 !ichie v Bedell I1$$%" SuB; 22
N7 8ee? Dig %*39 (inc? v 4annering I1$$7; 4* 2un 3239 !e ,non-mou0 I1$$7; 1$ ,<< NC 21*
IrecogniOing rule;9 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$+ 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 197+;
/eoBle e) rel. /o0t v :rant I1$$$; 13 N7 Civ /roc 3+%" revd on merit0 %+ 2un 243" 3 N7S 142
IrecogniOing rule;9 Boon v 4c:uc?en I1$93; *7 2un 2%1" 22 N7S 4249 !e De 6ong I1$9*; 2% Civ
/roc 3*3" 41 N7S 2+19 Siegel v Solomon I19+%" SuB ,BB &; 92 N7S 23$ IrecogniOing rule;.
4cCredie v Senior I1$34; 4 /aige 37$ But 0ee 4itchell>0 Ca0e I1$*1; 12 ,<< /r 249. ND State v.
- 19 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Zahn" 1997 ND *%" %*2 N.8.2d 737 IN.D. 1997; 3hio (or 3hio ca0e0" 0ee S 1%" in.ra /a Scranton v
/eoBle>0 Coal Co. I1922; 274 /a *3" 117 , *73 State :rand 6odge v 4orri0on I1923; 277 /a 41" 12+
, 7*9 IrecogniOing rule; !e ,ung0t I19*3; 411 /a %9%" 192 ,2d 723 IrecogniOing rule; !e 4-er0 G
Brei I1924; $3 /a SuBer 3$3 ,BBeal o. !eaB I192*; $$ /a SuBer 147 IrecogniOing rule;
Common=ealth v 4orri0e- I1942; 1%+ /a SuBer 2+2" 27 ,2d 44* De4a0i v De4a0i I1991" /a
SuBer; %97 ,2d 1+1 Common=ealth e) rel. Ziccardi v 2endric?0 I19*4; 33 /a D G C2d 419
IrecogniOing rule; But 0ee /enn0-lvania ca0e0 limiting revie= to Aue0tion o. a<u0e o. di0cretion" S 13"
in.ra. SC (or South Carolina ca0e0" 0ee S 13" in.ra 5tah Smith v @im<all I193+; 7* 5tah 3%+" 2$9 /
%$$" 7+ ,6! 1+1 IrecogniOing rule; #t But 0ee #ila0 v Burton I1$%4; 27 #t %*. !e Con0olidated
!endering Co. I19+7; $+ #t %%" ** , 79+" a..d 2+7 5S %41" %2 6 Ed 327" 2$ S Ct 17$ IaBBarentl-
recogniOing rule; Cutting v Cutting I192$; 1+1 #t 3$1" 143 , *7* IrecogniOing rule; Socon- 4o<ile
3il Co. v 4a00ena 1ron G 4etal Co. I19**; 12% #t 4+3" 217 ,2d %* #a Street v. Street" 24 #a. ,BB.
14" 4$+ S.E.2d 11$ I1997; 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$1 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in
197+; (or #irginia ca0e0" 0ee S 1%" in.ra , Judgment o. contemBt .or Bu<li0hing in a ne=0BaBer an
article critical o. the Judge in a Bending ca0e =a0 held revie=a<le <- =rit o. error" in /eoBle v :il<ert
I1917; 2$1 1ll *19" 11$ NE 19*. &he court 0aid that =hile the court again0t =hich the alleged
contemBtuou0 matter i0 Bu<li0hed Ba00e0 on the Aue0tion =hether or not the Bu<li0hed matter i0
actuall- contemBtuou0" -et the deci0ion o. that court i0 not conclu0ive: a =rit o. error ma- <e 0ued out
to revie= the Judgment o. the lo=er court. ,n order o. commitment .or contemBt o. court .or
re.u0ing to give a deBo0ition =a0 held to <e a .inal" aBBeala<le order" in 2ill v &homa0 B. Ke..er- Co.
I192+; 292 1ll 49+" 127 NE 124. &he court 0aid that the order o. commitment <- the 0uBerior court
=a0 a .inal Judgment in the ancillar- Broceeding that =a0 <rought to en.orce the interlocutor- order
directing the Blainti.. to aBBear and te0ti.-. 8hile the BurBo0e o. that Broceeding =a0 connected =ith
- 20 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and had it0 .oundation in the main ca0e" rea0oned the court" it =a0 a 0eBarate ca0e Bro0ecuted
indeBendentl- to en.orce a comBliance =ith the order o. the court. &he court 0aid that =hether that
order to te0ti.- =a0 interlocutor- or .inal =a0 immaterial: i. it =a0 la=.ull- made it =a0 the Blainti..>0
dut- to o<e- it" and a Judgment either that he =a0 guilt- o. contemBt or that he =a0 not =a0 a .inal
Judgment. See" ho=ever" /eoBle e) rel. :eneral 4otor0 CorB. v Bua I19*7; 37 1ll 2d 1$+" 22* NE2d
*" =here the court 0aid that =hile ordinaril- a contemBt adJudication i0 a .inal and aBBeala<le order"
thi0 rule =ould not <e .ollo=ed =here" in0tead o. the traditional .ine or imBri0onment a0 Buni0hment
.or contemBt" the de.endant held in contemBt =a0 Buni0hed <- having it0 an0=er to the amended
comBlaint 0tric?en and Judgment entered again0t it. &he contemBt =a0 adJudged .or .ailure to comBl-
=ith Bretrial di0cover- order0" and =hile the court determined that the 0tri?ing o. Bleading0 and the
entr- o. a de.ault Judgment =a0 Bermi00i<le a0 a 0anction .or the nonBroduction o. document0 under a
court rule authoriOed <- the legi0lature" the court held that thi0 could not <e u0ed to render an
interlocutor- order .inal and aBBeala<le <- the u0e o. contemBt language. &he imBo0ition o. a .ine or
imBri0onment a0 a 0anction .or contemBt i0 .inal and aBBeala<le <ecau0e it i0 an original 0Becial
Broceeding" collateral to and indeBendent o. the ca0e in =hich the contemBt ari0e0" e)Blained the
court" <ut the 0anction imBo0ed in thi0 ca0e did not directl- a..ect the outcome o. the BrinciBal action.
&here.ore the court concluded that 0ince the contemBt order" in e..ect" determined lia<ilit- =ithout a
determination o. damage0" it =a0 not -et .inal and aBBeala<le. 8hile recogniOing the right to aBBeal"
the court in /eoBle v Den 5-l I1949; 323 4ich 49+" 3% N82d 4*7" in con0idering an aBBeal .rom
one con.ined .or contemBt in re.u0ing to an0=er certain Aue0tion0 <e.ore an e)amining magi0trate"
ruled that the di0mi00al o. the BrinciBal ca0e I<ecau0e the Bro0ecution could not Broceed =ithout the
=itne00> te0timon-; a<ated the contemBt Broceeding and reAuired the di0mi00al o. the aBBeal. &he
court" ho=ever" in the order di0mi00ing the aBBeal" al0o di0mi00ed the =arrant o. commitment under
- 21 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=hich the =itne00 =a0 con.ined. , chancer- decree adJudging a corBoration to <e in contemBt o.
court .or di0o<e-ing a court order =a0 held aBBeala<le in Socon- 4o<il 3il Co. v 4a00ena 1ron G
4etal Co. I19**; 12% #t 4+3" 217 ,2d %*" on the authorit- o. an earlier ca0eQ2R that di..ered .rom the
ca0e at <ar onl- <ecau0e it originated in the Count- Court rather than the Court o. Chancer-" and that
=a0 held to <e BroBerl- tran0.erred to the SuBreme Court <- =a- o. a <ill o. e)ceBtion0. ,n' 33
,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$2 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 197+; other ca0e"Q3R =hich held
that an aBBeal =ould not lie .rom the decree o. the
chancellor in matter0 o. contemBt" =a0 relied uBon to 0uBBort a motion to di0mi00 the aBBeal" <ut the
court" Bointing out that a 1941 0tatute Brovided that cau0e0 heard in chancer- Ba00 to the SuBreme
Court in the 0ame manner a0 aBBeal0 .rom Count- Court" 0aid that the e..ect o. thi0 legi0lation =a0 to
a<oli0h aBBeal0 in chancer- a0 the- Breviou0l- e)i0ted" and to 0u<0titute the 0tatute0 aBBlica<le to
o<tain revie= o. Count- Court Broceeding0. &here.ore" concluded the court" the #ila0 Ca0e Bre0ented
no o<0tacle to the Bending aBBeal. C5456,&1#E S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: &o o<tain aBBellate
revie=" 0u<Boenaed Bart- mu0t de.- di0trict court>0 en.orcement order" <e held in contemBt" and then
aBBeal contemBt order" =hich i0 regarded a0 .inal. D-neg- 4id0tream Service0 v. &rammochem" 4%1
(.3d $9 I2d Cir. 2++*;. 8here 0ecuritie0 trading corBoration =a0 adJudged in contemBt .or .ailing to
turn over taBe recording a0 ordered <- court" court had Juri0diction to revie= contemBt order even
though imBo0ition o. 0anction0 =a0 0ta-ed and no 0anction0 =ere .ormulated Brior to entr- o. 0ta-. !e
&hree :rand Kur- Su<Boena0 I19$$" C,2 N7; $47 (2d 1+24. , di0trict court>0 ruling on an
aBBlication .or a contemBt order i0 revie=ed .or a<u0e o. di0cretion. (rontier'@emBer Con0tructor0"
1nc. v. ,merican !oc? Salt Co." 224 (. SuBB. 2d %2+ I8.D. N.7. 2++2;. /o0t'Judgment order0 o.
contemBt are =ithin an aBBellate court>0 Juri0diction a0 revie=a<le H.inal order0.H 2$ 5.S.C.,. S 1291.
Berne CorB. v. :overnment o. &he #irgin 10land0" %7+ (.3d 13+ I3d Cir. 2++9;. Court o. ,BBeal0
- 22 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
had Juri0diction o. de.endant>0 aBBeal o. contemBt order" although contemBt order o. it0el. did not
con0titute a .inal order that could <e aBBealed" =here Bortion o. order that included contemBt .inding
=a0 comBlete and .inal. 4 G C CorB. v. Er=in Behr :m<2 G Co." 2$9 (ed. ,BB). 927 I*th Cir.
2++$;. 8hen the di0o<e-ed order =ould <e indeBendentl- aBBeala<le under an e)ceBtion to the .inal'
deci0ion rule" then the contemBt citation al0o ma- <e aBBeala<le. S.E.C. v. 4cNamee" 4$1 (.3d 4%1"
(ed. Sec. 6. !eB. ICC2; / 94172 I7th Cir. 2++7;. :rant or denial o. contemBt order i0 revie=ed .or
a<u0e o. di0cretion" <ut order o. contemBt i0 revie=ed more 0earchingl-. 5.S. v. &eeBle" 2$* (.3d
1+47" $9 ,.(.&.!.2d 2++2'21+2 I$th Cir. 2++2;. ContemBt adJudication i00ued in Bo0tJudgment Bha0e
o. civil action =a0 aBBeala<le =hether contemBt =a0 con0idered to <e civil or criminal" 0ince
adJudication Bo00e00ed attri<ute0 o. oBerativene00 and con0eAuence nece00ar- to aBBeala<ilit-.
Con0umer0 :a0 G 3il" 1nc. v. (armland 1ndu0trie0" 1nc." $4 (.3d 3*7" 34 (ed. !. Serv. 3d 1%%+ I1+th
Cir. 199*;. Denial o. motion .or order to 0ho= cau0e =h- Bart- 0hould not <e held in contemBt i0
.inal" aBBeala<le order. &homa0 v. Blue Cro00 and Blue Shield ,00>n" %94 (.3d $14 I11th Cir. 2+1+;.
, contemBt order i0 .inal and aBBeala<le =hen the oBBortunit- to Burge the contemBt ha0 Ba00ed and
the Bo0ition o. the Bartie0 ha0 <een a..ected <- the contemBt order. Sei?o EB0on CorB. v. NuW@ote
1ntern." 1nc." 19+ (.3d 13*+" %2 5.S./.X.2d IBN,; 1+11 I(ed. Cir. 1999;" reh>g denied" in <anc
0ugge0tion declined" I3ct. 19" 1999;. 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$3 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall-
Bu<li0hed in 197+; , contemBt order i0 a .inal" aBBeala<le order. &helman v. State" 37% ,r?. 11*" 2$9
S.8.3d 7* I2++$;. ContemBt Judgment i0 revie=a<le .inal order. C.:.S.,. S %1W33. State v. Bre0cia"
123 Conn. ,BB. 342" 1 ,.3d 114% I2+1+;. ,BBellate Court =ill rever0e a .inding o. contemBt onl- i.
the Court conclude0 the trial court a<u0ed it0 di0cretion. Do=d v. Do=d" 9* Conn. ,BB. 7%" $99 ,.2d
7* I2++*;. Even i. adJudication o. contemBt =a0 con0idered .inal Judgment" court =a0 =ithout
Juri0diction =here notice o. aBBeal =a0 .iled more than a month <e.ore 0entencing. 8e0t v 5nited
- 23 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
State0 IDi0t Col ,BB; 34* ,2d %+4. 3rder o. .amil- court in matrimonial action determining cu0tod-
o. children demanding 0uBBort Ba-ment0" alloting Ber0onal BroBert- and .inding Bart- in contemBt .or
violation o. Brior order =a0 .inal and aBBeala<le" not=ith0tanding continuing Juri0diction o. .amil-
court to modi.- order. Cleveland v Cleveland I1977" 2a=aii; %%9 /2d 744. , contemBt order i0
aBBeala<le under the 0ame circum0tance0 a0 another order or Judgment entered in a civil or criminal
action. Callaghan v. Callaghan" 142 1daho 1$%" 12% /.3d 1+*1 I2++%;. 5nder rule that revie= o.
alread- i00ued contemBt order mu0t <e <- =rit o. revie= or <- aBBeal" =rit o. Brohi<ition =a0 not
BroBer remed- <- =hich to conte0t order .inding divorced =i.e in contemBt .or .ailure to grant
vi0itation right0 to divorced hu0<and. De- v Cunningham" 93 1daho *$4" 471 /2d 71. 3rdinaril-"
adJudication in contemBt Broceeding i0 .inal and aBBeala<le <ecau0e it i0 original 0Becial Broceeding"
collateral to" and indeBendent o." ca0e in =hich contemBt ari0e0" =here imBo0ition o. 0anction doe0
not directl- a..ect outcome o. BrinciBal action" even though 0uch adJudication doe0 not di0Bo0e o. all
i00ue0 in litigation. Earle0 v. Earle0" 2$7 1ll. Dec. 4++" $1% N.E.2d 12+3 I,BB. Ct. 3d Di0t. 2++4;. 1t i0
aBBroBriate .or a Bart- to reAue0t that a contemBt order <e entered again0t it 0o that Bart- ma- 0ee?
immediate aBBeal o. a trial court>0 di0cover- order. 8e<< v. 4ount Sinai 2o0B. and 4edical Center
o. Chicago" 1nc." 2$3 1ll. Dec. 1$%" $+7 N.E.2d 1+2* I,BB. Ct. 10t Di0t. 2++4;. 8hen an individual
aBBeal0 .rom a contemBt 0anction imBo0ed .or violating" or threatening to violate" a di0cover- order"
the contemBt .inding i0 .inal and aBBeala<le and Bre0ent0 to the revie=ing court the BroBriet- o. that
di0cover- order. !eda v. ,dvocate 2ealth Care" 199 1ll. 2d 47" 2*2 1ll. Dec. 394" 7*% N.E.2d 1++2
I2++2;. Kudgment o. contemBt again0t la= .irm .or violating order to =ithdra= aBBearance a.ter .irm
=a0 di0Auali.ied .rom reBre0enting de.endant con0tituted .inal and aBBeala<le Judgment and
Bre0ented to court .or revie= BroBriet- o. court>0 order" even though 0ugge0tion that la= .irm re.u0e
to =ithdra= came .rom trial Judge and underl-ing controver0- =a0 not certi.ied .or revie=. 1nde)
- 24 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(uture0 :rouB" 1nc. v Street I19$7" 10t Di0t; 1*3 1ll ,BB 3d *%4" 114 1ll Dec 73%" %1* NE2d $9+. &he
Court o. ,BBeal0 =ill rever0e a trial court>0 .inding o. contemBt onl- =here there i0 no evidence or
in.erence0 .rom the record to 0uBBort it. Deel v. Deel" 9+9 N.E.2d 1+2$ I1nd. Ct. ,BB. 2++9;.
ContemBt Judgment .or violation o. an order o. the court regarding child vi0itation =a0 .inal and
there.ore aBBeala<le. &hi<odeau) v. &hi<odeau)" 74$ So. 2d 11$+ I6a. Ct. ,BB. %th Cir. 1999;. 33
,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$4 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 197+; 1nterlocutor- Judgment
.inding e)W=i.e in contemBt and ordering her to Ba- a .ine and attorne- .ee0 threatened irreBara<le
inJur-" and thu0" direct aBBeal could <e ta?en. Duc?0=orth v. Duc?0=orth" 727 So. 2d 12%4 I6a. Ct.
,BB. 4th Cir. 1999;. , Bart- .ound in contemBt ha0 a right to aBBeal .rom that deci0ion even though
the merit0 o. the litigation in =hich the contemBt order =a0 entered have not -et <een re0olved.
4orri0 v. 8alden" $%* So. 2d 7+% I4i00. Ct. ,BB. 2++3;. ,BBellate court =ill not rever0e a contemBt
citation =here the chancellor>0 .inding0 are 0uBBorted <- 0u<0tantial credi<le evidence. :ood0on v.
:ood0on" $1* So. 2d 42+ I4i00. Ct. ,BB. 2++2;. ,lthough 0eBarate i00ue0 o. main Betition and
contemBt =ere addre00ed =ithin 0ame Judgment" each Bortion o. Judgment =a0 0eBaratel- aBBeala<le.
S&6 CaBital 4anagement" 66C v. Brda" 2+7 S.8.3d *49 I4o. Ct. ,BB. E.D. 2++*;. 8hile contemBt
order0 generall- are .inal and not aBBeala<le" e)ceBtion e)i0t0 .or .amil-W la= ca0e0" in =hich aBBeal0
are Bermitted. 2eath v 2eath I199%" 4ont; 9+1 /2d %9+. ,lthough contemBtWo.Wcourt order0 i00ued
<- Di0trict Court are .inal and u0uall- unrevie=a<le e)ceBt <- =a- o. =rit o. certiorari or revie="
e)ceBtion e)i0t0 .or contemBt order0 made in di00olutionWo.Wmarriage Broceeding0. 1n re 4arriage o.
Bohar0?i I1993; 2%7 4ont 71" $47 /2d 7+9. ,n aBBellate court" revie=ing a .inal Judgment or order
in a contemBt Broceeding" revie=0 .or error0 aBBearing on the record. Dougla0 Count- e) rel.
Dougla0 Count- ,00e00or>0 3..ice v. @o=al" 27+ Ne<. 9$2" 7+$ N.8.2d **$ I2++*;. ,BBellate court"
revie=ing .inal Judgment or order in contemBt Broceeding" revie=0 .or error0 aBBearing on record.
- 25 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
@lingin0mith v. 8ichmann" 2%2 Ne<. $$9" %*7 N.8.2d 172 I1997;. , contemBt order imBo0ing a
Bunitive 0anction i0 a .inal order and i0 revie=a<le on aBBeal. 4cDermott v. 4cDermott" $ Ne<. ,BB.
$*+" *+2 N.8.2d *7* I1999;. 8hether the trial court adhered to the reAui0ite Brocedure0 in a criminal
contemBt Broceeding i0 a Aue0tion o. la=" =hich i0 revie=ed de novo. 4ortgage SBeciali0t0" 1nc. v.
Dave-" 9+4 ,.2d *%2 IN.2. 2++*;. , .inding o. contemBt" com<ined =ith a 0anction .or contemBt"
.orm0 a .inal aBBeala<le order. State v. ,dam0" 1%3 3hio ,BB. 3d 134" 2++3'3hio'3+$*" 791 N.E.2d
1+4% I7th Di0t. 2arri0on Count- 2++3;. , contemBt Broceeding" even though it gro=0 out o. another
Broceeding" i0 ordinaril- regarded a0 a collateral or 0eBarate action .rom the underl-ing ca0e and i0
0eBaratel- aBBeala<le" =ith aBBellate revie= limited to the contemBt order it0el.. 6erma v. 8al'4art
Store0" 1nc." 2++* 3@ $4" 14$ /.3d $$+ I3?la. 2++*;. 3rder o. contemBt i0 .inal and aBBeala<le =hen
the order contain0 a Bre0ent .inding o. contemBt and imBo0e0 0anction0. 1n re C.8." 2++$ /, SuBer
2%4" 9*+ ,.2d 4%$ I2++$;. , contemBt order i0 aBBeala<le =here the order con0titute0 a .inal one that
imBo0e0 0anction0 uBon the o..ending Bart-. &a?o0?- v. 2enning" 2++* /, SuBer 237" 9+* ,.2d
12%% I2++*;. SuBerior Court =ill rever0e trial court>0 determination a0 to contemBt conviction onl-
=hen there ha0 <een Blain a<u0e o. di0cretion. Com. v. 2aigh" 2++% /, SuBer 139" $74 ,.2d 1174
I2++%;" reargument denied" IKune 17" 2++%;. ContemBt order Breventing neigh<or0
.rom u0ing BroBert- o=ner0> Bond =a0 immediatel- aBBeala<le9 it imBo0ed co0t o. <ond on
neigh<or0" and thi0 0anction could not <e Burged. 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$ /age 1$% 33 ,.6.!.3d 44$
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 197+; 8olanin v. 2a0hagen" 2++3 /, SuBer 2%$" $29 ,.2d 331 I2++3;. 1n a
ca0e o. contemBt" the trial court ma- .ind a Bart- in contemBt and that Bart- ma- aBBeal the .inding o.
contemBt" <ut the Bart- a0?ing .or the contemBt ma- not" a0 it i0 not aggrieved. Borough o. Slatington
v. Ziegler" $9+ ,.2d $ I/a. Comm=. Ct. 2++%;. Since a contemBt order i0 .inal in nature" an order
comBelling di0cover- ma- <e aBBealed onl- a.ter a trial court hold0 a Bart- in contemBt. &uc?er v.
- 26 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2onda o. South Carolina 4.g." 1nc." %$2 S.E.2d 4+% IS.C. 2++3;. &he .inding o. contemBt i0
immediatel- aBBeala<le. E) Barte Cannon" *$% S.E.2d $14 IS.C. Ct. ,BB. 2++9;. Circuit court>0
remed- or Buni0hment .or contemBt o. court i0 revie=ed under the a<u0e o. di0cretion 0tandard.
SaOama v. State e) rel. 4uilen<erg" 2++7 SD 17" 729 N.8.2d 33% IS.D. 2++7;. , trial court>0 .inding
o. contemBt i0 revie=ed .or a<u0e o. di0cretion. State e) rel. (lo=er0 v. &enne00ee &ruc?ing ,00>n
Sel. 1n0. :rouB &ru0t" 2+9 S.8.3d *+2 I&enn. Ct. ,BB. 2++*;" aBBeal denied" I3ct. 3+" 2++*;. , trial
court>0 0entence .or contemBt" li?e the e)erci0e o. it0 contemBt Bo=er" i0 revie=a<le .or a<u0e o.
di0cretion. State v. Clar?" 2++% 5& 7%" 124 /.3d 23% I5tah 2++%;. &rial court0 have di0cretion to
i00ue contemBt order0" and rever0al o. a contemBt Judgment i0 aBBroBriate onl- i. the trial court>0
di0cretion =a0 either totall- =ithheld or e)erci0ed on ground0 clearl- untena<le or unrea0ona<le. 1n re
Duc?man" $9$ ,.2d 734 I#t. 2++*;. ,n adJudication o. contemBt i0 aBBeala<le i. it i0 a .inal order or
Judgment9 i.e." the contumac-" the Bart->0 =ill.ul re0i0tance to the contemBt order" i0 e0ta<li0hed" and
the 0anction i0 a coercive one de0igned to comBel comBliance =ith the court>0 order. !,/ 2.2Ia;. 1n re
E0tate0 o. Smaldino" 212 /.3d %79 I8a0h. Ct. ,BB. Div. 1 2++9;. ,BBeal0 .rom contemBt order0 are
one'Judge aBBeal0. 8.S.,. 7%2.31I2;Ih;. 1n re 8a0hington" 2++* 81 ,BB 99" 71* N.8.2d 17* I8i0.
Ct. ,BB. 2++*;.!/D mi0conduct Ju0ti.ie0 a di0mi00al or aBBlication o. e)clu0ionar- rule in 0everal
=a-0. !/D Duralde Jo?ed and moc?ed Coughlin" menacingl- indicated he =a0 overcharging the
o..en0e a0 Hgrand larcen-H .or an older moldel 3g i/hone that clearl- =a0n>t =orth more then L*+.
5Bon in.ormation and <elie. and Duralde>0 o=n menacing 0tatement0" thi0 =a0 done <ecau0e it =ould
inconvenience and Buni0h Coughlin more given the gravit- o. the charge" damage hi0 reButation"
reAuire great <ail" and Brevent the o..en0e .rom needing to occur in the !/D 3..icer0 Bre0ent Ia
mi0demeanor cu0todial arre0t i0 onl- Bermi00i<le =ere thi0 i0 the ca0e under N!S;. (uther the D,
ha0 an intere0t in helBing out the !eno Cit- ,ttorne-" =hom ?no=0 the- li?el- ought <e 0ued .or
- 27 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
numerou0 =rong.ull- arre0t recentl- in a coordinated Hgang <angH o. 0ort0 again0t Coughlin" =hom
ha0 Brett- much Ju0t =orn it uB til no=" even =here DD, 7oung i0 re.u0ing a continuance.
238 4,N7 &14ES D3ES DD, 735N: :E& &3 ,4END &2E C!141N,6 C34/6,1N&D
1N C1#16 ,C&13NS 3NE :E&S 3NE ,4ENDED BE(3!E NEED &3 SEE@ 6E,#E 3. court.
&oo man-" and there =ere a variet- o. other Brocedural de.iciencie0 here related to the incarceration
<ail" dela- in 3! relea0e" arraignmnet" etc.
Zach Coughlin" E0A. gre= uB in Nevada. 2i0 mother and .ather hail .rom Da-ton" 3hio Ihi0 .ather i0
a local .amil- Bractitioner =ho ha0 an emBha0i0 in addiction medicine and ha0 <een involved in
numerou0 intervention0 .or individual0 .airl- high uB in the Judicial <ranch o. government. &im
Coughlin" 4.D. Bla-ed .ull<ac? .or &ulane 5niver0it- and did a re0idenc- at Du?e...Coughlin>0
4other i0 4ar- Bar?er =ho ha0 =or?ed a0 a :rant Coordinator .or local non'Bro.it #er- SBecial ,rt0
o. Nevada .or man- -ear0" and =a0 .ormerl- a 0chool teacher and a graduate o. the 5niver0it- o.
4iami I3hio;;. Coughlin>0 mother divorce hi0 .ather in &e)a0 in 197$ and moved to :ardnerville"
N# =ith her ne= hu0<and. Coughlin>0 .ather .ollo=ed and the- have all <een here ever 0ince. Zach
Coughlin" E0A. attended CC 4eneall- elementar- 0chool in :ardnerville" N#" S=oBe 4iddle School
in !eno" and =a0 a National 4erit (inali0t Ia0 =a0 8C/D Koe :oodnight; and ,ll'State Ba0?et<all
Bla-er at !eno 2igh School" .ini0hing hi0 time Bla-ing a0 the 0chool>0 then all time leading 0corer.
Coughlin i0 li0ted in the National (ederation o. 2igh School>0 record <oo? .or having one o. the toB
ten highe0t 0hooting Bercentage0 .or a 0ingle 0ea0on" all time" .or tho0e =ith at lea0t 4++ attemBt0"
=ith a rate o. *%.4Y. Coughlin and hi0 !eno 2igh team lo0t the Oone .inal0 to Car0on 2igh School
- 28 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43'42 in 199%. Coughlin ha0 coached 9th grade <a0?et<all at !eno 2igh School in the Ba0t" and =a0
.ormerl- emBlo-ed at 2ale 6ane and 8a0hoe 6egal Service0 in addition to doing Biece meal =or? .or
:eo. :ile0" E0A." &om 2all" E0A. and variou0 other attorne-0. Coughlin i0 .riend0 =ith Che0ter HCoeH
S=o<e" E0A. Coughlin graduated =ith a B.S. in Biolog- .rom the 5niver0it- o. Nevada !eno and
Ba00ed the Kul- 2++1 Nevada <ar e)amination =ith the inaugural graduating cla00 o. 5N6#>0 Bo-d
School o. 6a= during the 0ummer .ollo= hi0 0econd -ear o. la= 0chool" going <ac? to 0chool to
.ini0h hi0 la0t 0eme0ter and graduate in Decem<er o. 2++1. Coughlin ha0 a hi0tor- =ith the Bolice
that ha0 <een rather tr-ing" and it =ould ta?e Auite 0ome time to go into it. 8edgie0 have <een
involved. &hreat0 to have thing0 H0hovedH uB Coughlin>0 a00 have <een involved. &ac?ling" H=hite
<o-H re<u?e0" etc." etc. Coughlin i0 a * .oot 4" 2%+ Bound .ormer ,ll'State Center in <a0?et<all and
it 0eem0 hi0 Bh-0ical characteri0tic0" com<ined =ith a t-Bicall- 1ri0h re0entment o. an- authoritie0
encroachment uBon =hat he Berceive0 to <e Hhi0 right0H can o.ten re0ult in un.ortunate
Hmi0under0tanding0H =ith la= en.orcement. ,gain" Coughlin Ba00ed the Kul- 2++1 <ar e)amination.
2e =a0 0=orn in <- Kudge Breen" =ith Coe S=o<e and @eith 6ee" E0A. loo?ing on at thi0 e)amBle o.
their 0ucce00.ul Bo=er0 o. reha<ilitation in 4arch o. 2++%. Coughlin>0 .ather called uB the then Dean
o. 5N6#" !ichard 4organ an announced Coughlin either a drun? or a drug addict or craO- or
0omething li?e that. Coughlin =a0 denied a licen0e to Bractice la= in Cali.ornia de0Bite Ba00ing that
<ar e)amination =ithout 0tud-ing .or it" on the <a0i0 o. 5N6#>0 Dean 4organ reBorting =hat
Coughlin>0 .ather 0aid to him in con.idence on the teleBhone to the State Bar o. Cali.ornia" =ho0e
6,/ Brogram0 li?e0 to have BeoBle =ho are licen0e a marriage and .amil- theraBi0t0 Bractice
medicine =ithout a licen0e =ith imBunit- =hil0t charging inordinate .ee0 .or the Brivilege o. 0uch
helB. Coughlin and hi0 .ather di0agree on =hether Dr. Coughlin>0 aBBroach to Barenting i0 o. the
4unchau0en <- /ro)- School" <ut the- remain clo0e nonethele00. Coughlin i0 and ha0 <een 0o<er .or
- 29 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
man- -ear0" <ut he =hat H:od damn <idne00 that i0 o. an-<od->0 an-=a-" e..in Nann- State
mothere..er0....H. Coughlin i0 al0o licen0ed to Bractice Batent la= <e.ore the 5nited State0 /atent and
&rademar? o..ice" and" un.ortunatel- i0" in Dr. Coughlin>0 e)Bert oBinion" a..licted =ith the terminal
di0ea0e o. H<eing a mu0icianH. &hi0 i0 not the .ir0t time one o. the Coughlin elder0 ha0 <rought 0hame
uBon the Coughlin name through their deBarture .rom .idelit- to the Bill o. !ight0:
httB:CC===.da-tondail-ne=0.comCne=0Cda-ton'ne=0Cde.endant0'tried'=ithout'la=-er0'in'hu<er'
height0'court'=in'aBBeal0'%$%793.html
6E:,6 ,!:54EN&
I1+; 82E!E 1S &2E 61NE BE&8EEN , MS&3/P ,ND ,N
M,!!ES&DN
1. 1n 2a-e0 v. (lorida" 47+ 5.S. $11 I19$%; the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid that
although there i0 no M<right line ruleN to an0=er thi0 Aue0tion" at 0ome Boint in the
inve0tigation Bolice Brocedure0 can <ecome 0o Aualitativel- and Auantitativel- intru0ive
regarding a 0u0BectP0 .reedom o. movement and Brivac- that an Marre0tN occur0. &he
Court 0aid thi0 occur0 =hen the Bolice" =ithout /CC or a =arrant" .orci<l- reAuire a
Ber0on to go to a Bolice 0tation =here he i0 detained even <rie.l- .or inve0tigation.
2. M&here i0 no <right line rule ... there.ore =hether an arre0t ha0 occurred
deBend0 on all the circum0tance0. /ointing a =eaBon" ordering him to lie on the ground"
handcu..ing and Blacing in a Bolice vehicle .or a <rie. Beriod o. time either 0ingl- or in
com<ination doe0 not al=a-0 convert a I&err-; 0toB into an arre0t reAuiring /CC ... Bolice
need not u0e the lea0t intru0ive mean0 o. re0Bonding to an e)igent 0ituation ... a0 long a0
- 30 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their action0 are rea0ona<le.N ,llen v. Cit- o. 6o0 ,ngele0" ** (.3d 1+%2 I9th Cir. 199%;.
Same rationale in 5.S. v. &orre0' SancheO" $3 (.3d 1123 I9th Cir. 199*; and 5.S. v.
Blac?man" ** (.3d 1%72 I11th Cir. 199%;.
3. 1n 8a0hington v. 6am<ert" 9$ (.3d 11$1 I9th Cir. 199*; &=o <lac?
*2
<u0ine00men =ere 0een leaving a re0taurant <- a Bolice o..icer. &he o..icer thought the
t=o men matched the de0criBtion o. t=o armed ro<<er0 in multiBle ro<<erie0" although
the court noted that the actual 0iOe and =eight o. 8a0hington and 2ic?0 =ere 0everal
inche0 and %+ Bound0 di..erent .rom the 0u0Bect0. &he o..icer called .or a <ac?uB and
.ollo=ed the rental car to a hotel. , radio chec? 0aid the rental car =a0 not 0tolen. ,t the
garage in the hotel" the Bolice got out and one o. them Bointed a gun at the t=o men"
ordered them to But their hand0 uB and handcu..ed them" then 0earched their Ber0on0 and
the car. No =eaBon0 or contra<and =a0 .ound. &he t=o men 0ued the Bolice under 42
5.S.C. 19$3.
. &he Court held that Min determining =hether the u0e o. intru0ive techniAue0 turn0
a 0toB into an arre0t" =e e)amine the rea0ona<lene00 o. the Bolice conduct in light o. a
num<er o. .actor0" 0uch a0 1; =here the 0u0Bect i0 uncooBerative or ta?e0 action that
rai0e0 a rea0ona<le Bo00i<ilit- o. danger or .light" 2; =here the Bolice have in.ormation
that the 0u0Bect i0 currentl- armed" 3; =here the 0toB clo0el- .ollo=0 a violent crime and"
4; =here the Bolice have in.ormation that a crime that ma- involve violence i0 a<out to
occur. Some com<ination o. the0e .actor0 ma- al0o Ju0ti.- the u0e o. aggre00ive Bolice
action =ithout cau0ing an inve0tigator- 0toB to turn into an arre0t.
1n the Bre0ent ca0e the Bolice action con0tituted an arre0t =ith no
- 31 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bro<a<le cau0e" Ial0o argua<l- no !CS to Ju0ti.- a &err- 0toB either; there<- ma?ing
the o..icer0 and Bolice deBartment lia<le .or damage0. 42 5.S.C. 19$3.
*3
(. ,!!ES&: &2E 21:2ES& 6E#E6 3( C3N&,C&
1t i0 imBortant to di0tingui0h arre0t .rom &err-'t-Be detention. I,rre0t i0 onl-
legal i. made on Bro<a<le cau0e;.
1. S&,&5&3!7 DE(1N1&13N
N!S 171.124 0a-0 -ou can arre0t .or .elon- or gro00 mi0demeanor =ith or
=ithout a =arrant" da- or night" i. Hrea0ona<le cau0eH to <elieve 0u<Ject ha0 committed a
.elon- or gro00 mi0demeanor.
2. &2E 5.S. S5/!E4E C35!& C,SE 6,8
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court 0a-0: HBro<a<le cau0eH i0 a term dealing =ith ever-da-
Bro<a<ilitie0" not legal technicalitie0. DraBer v. 5nited State0" 3%$ 5.S. 3+7I19%9;"
H=hether a man o. rea0ona<le caution =ould <elieve an o..en0e =a0 <eing or had <een
committedH '' not a Aue0tion o. the Hgood .aithH o. the o..icer <ut a need to articulate
.act0 cau0ing rea0ona<le <elie..
&he Ho<Jective te0tH i0 u0ed to determine =hether and =hen an arre0t occur0. ,
court ma- con0ider that there =a0 an arre0t even though the 0u0Bect =a0 not told H-ou are
under arre0tH. (actor0 0uch a0 0ho= o. authorit-" involuntar- re0traint or movement and
Ba00age o. time are imBortant.
Duna=a- v. Ne= 7or?" 442 5.S. 2++ I1979;" Bolice lac?ed Bro<a<le cau0e to
arre0t '' =ent to 0u0Bect>0 neigh<orP0 home and a0?ed him in a comBul0ive =a- to go to
Bolice 0tation =here he =a0 Blaced in interrogation room '' =a0n>t told he =a0 .ree to go '
- 32 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
' the triB .rom the re0idence to the Bolice 0tation =a0 0everal mile0 and too? 1 hour ''
2eld '' although he =a0n>t told he =a0 under arre0t and =a0n>t <oo?ed '' thi0 =a0 0ame a0
an Harre0tH" <ecau0e the Bolice told him he needed to go to the Bolice 0tation" he
acAuie0ced" and the triB too? an hour and =ent man- mile0 .rom hi0 re0idence. 2i0
0u<0eAuent con.e00ion to a crime =a0 0uBBre00ed a0 a H.ruitH o. the Harre0tH =ithout
Bro<a<le cau0e.
(lorida v. !o-er" 4*+ 5.S. 491 I19$3;" Bolice 0u0Bected de.endant a0 drug
courier" aBBroached and a0?ed to 0Bea? to him and reAue0ted to 0ee hi0 tic?et and driver>0
licen0e''noted that name0 didn>t match '' a0?ed him to go to near<- room =hile retaining
hi0 tic?et and licen0e. 2eld '' thi0 con0tituted a H0eiOureH. 1% minute0 a.ter initial 0toB he
con0ented to 0earch o. 0uitca0e. Court ruled that thi0 Bolice conduct e..ectivel-
con0tituted an Harre0tH and reAuired Bro<a<le cau0e. Since there =a0 no /CC" Ialthough
there =a0 !CS; the illegal Harre0t tainted the con0ent.
3. NE#,D, C,SES
/ro<a<le cau0e to ma?e a =arrantle00 arre0t e)i0t0 i. the .act0 and
circum0tance0 ?no=n to the o..icer0 at the moment o. the arre0t =ould =arrant a Brudent
*4
man in <elieving that a .elon- had <een committed <- the Ber0on arre0ted. &homa0 v.
Sheri.." $% Nev. %%1 I19*9;.
&he HBro<a<le cau0eH te0t i0 <a0ed on the totalit- o. the circum0tance0
?no=n to the o..icer. 4inor v. State" 91 Nev. 4%* I197%;.
4. S&,ND,!D (3! /!3B,B6E C,5SE
Ba0icall-" the 0ame 0tandard IAuantit- o. Broo.; i0 needed .or arre0t0 a0 .or
- 33 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0earche0" 0o the 1llinoi0 v. :ate0" 4*2 5.S. 213 I19$3;" totalit- o. the circum0tance0 te0t
aBBlie0 ' i.e.: a .air Bro<a<ilit-" <ut not nece00aril- a certaint-.
1n 5.S. v. 3rnela0" 11* S. Ct. 1*%7 I199*; &he Court ruled: ,rticulating
Breci0el- =hat Hrea0ona<le 0u0BicionH and HBro<a<le cau0eH mean i0 not Bo00i<le. &he-
are common 0en0e" nontechnical conceBtion0 that deal =ith H >the .actual and Bractical
con0ideration0 o. ever-da- li.e on =hich rea0ona<le and Brudent men" not legal
technician0" act.> H ,0 0uch" the 0tandard0 are Hnot readil-" or even u0e.ull-" reduced to a
neat 0et o. legal rule0.H. 8e have de0cri<ed rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion 0imBl- a0 Ha
BarticulariOed and o<Jective <a0i0H .or 0u0Becting the Ber0on 0toBBed o. criminal activit-"
and Bro<a<le cau0e to 0earch a0 e)i0ting =here the ?no=n .act0 and circum0tance0 are
0u..icient to =arrant a man o. rea0ona<le Brudence in the <elie. that contra<and or
evidence o. a crime =ill <e .ound. 8e have cautioned that the0e t=o legal BrinciBle0 are
not H.inel-'tuned 0tandard0"H comBara<le to the 0tandard0 o. Broo. <e-ond a rea0ona<le
dou<t or o. Broo. <- a BreBonderance o. the evidence.
1n 5.S. v. Covarru<ia0" *% (.3d 13*2 I7th Cir.199%; the Court held that M/olice
have /CC to arre0t i. at the moment o. the arre0t the .act0 and circum0tance0 =ithin their
?no=ledge o. =hich the- had rea0ona<l- tru0t=orth- in.ormation =ere 0u..icient to
=arrant a Brudent Ber0on in <elieving that the 0u0Bect had committed an o..en0e. 8hile
/CC reAuire0 more than mere 0u0Bicion" =e do not reAuire it to reach the level o. virtual
certaint-.N
1n Brinegar v. 5.S." 33$ 5.S. 1*+ I1949; the Court held" M/CC reAuire0 le00 than
Ithe amount o.; evidence that =ould Ju0ti.- a conviction <ut more than mere 0u0Bicion.N
and in SBinelli v. 5.S." 393 5.S. 41+ I19*9; the Court held that Monl- the Bro<a<ilit- and
- 34 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not a Brima .acie 0ho=ing o. criminal activit- i0 the 0tandard o. /CC.N ,l0o" in :er0tein
v. /ugh" 42+ 5.S. 1+3 I197%;" in ruling on a magi0trateP0 determination o. /CC a.ter a
=arrantle00 arre0t" the Court held that Ma /CC determination doe0 not reAuire the .ine
re0olution o. con.licting evidence that a rea0ona<le dou<t or BreBonderance Imore than
%+Y Bro<a<ilit-; demand0.N
1n :reene v. !eeve0" $3+ (.3d 11+1 I*th Cir. 199*; Bolice arre0ted the Barent0 .or
Bromoting 0e)ual Ber.ormance0 <- a minor <a0ed on their 0ending o. a Bo0tcard =ith a
BhotograBh o. the genital area o. their unclothed minor daughter. &he Court uBheld the
arre0t 0tating that" M the /CC 0tandard doe0 not mean that the I evidence o. the 0u0Bected
criminal act; i0 more li?el- than not.N
*%
1n 5.S. v. 4athna-" $9% (.2d 141$ I9th Cir. 199+; H&he te0t .or Bro<a<le cau0e i0
=hether the .act0 and circum0tance0 =ithin the arre0ting o..icer>0 ?no=ledge are
0u..icient to =arrant a Brudent Ber0on to <elieve a 0u0Bect ha0 committed" i0 committing"
or i0 a<out to commit a crime.H , court ma- con0ider <oth the e)Berience and collective
?no=ledge o. all o..icer0 involved in the inve0tigation and their re0Bective level0 o.
e)Berti0e.. , court ma- al0o con0ider an- rea0ona<le in.erence0 dra=n .rom the o..icer0>
collective ?no=ledge.
1n 5.S. v. 3camBo" 937 (.2d 4$% I9th Cir. 1991; the Court held that M/CC
evaluation deBend0 on the totalit- o. the .act0 Io. the ca0e; even though there i0 an
innocent e)Blanation .or each .act.N
Note: 1n &err- v. 3hio" 392 5.S. 1 I19*$; the Bolice detective =ith more than 2+
-ear0 e)Berience 0a= &err- and hi0 Bartner0 =al? .rom a 0treet corner to loo? in the .ront
- 35 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=indo= o. a Je=elr- 0tore =ithout entering to 0hoB a<out a doOen time0 in t=elve
minute0. Even though thi0 action =a0 I0uBer.iciall-; innocent" the SuBreme Court agreed
that under all the circum0tance0 there =a0 !CS that the- =ere ca0ing the 0tore .or an
armed ro<<er-.
,lthough &err- involved !CS" 3camBo and numerou0 other ca0e0 hold that
Mo<viou0 criminalN <ehavior IBointing a gun at a victim;i0 not reAuired .or /CC.
%. S35!CES 3( /!3B,B6E C,5SE
!elia<le Con.idential 1n.ormant
See the 0ection in thi0 manual on 0earch =arrant0 to learn .actor0 that ma?e an in.ormant relia<le.
4cCra- v. 1llinoi0" 3$* 5.S. 3++ I19*7;. , 0trong Broven relia<le in.ormant =ith
.ir0t'hand in.ormation i0 enough .or Bro<a<le cau0e. H&he Court ha0 never reAuired a rule
o. comBul0or- di0clo0ure o. an in.ormant =here the i00ue i0 the Breliminar- one o.
Bro<a<le cau0e" and guilt or innocence i0 not at 0ta?eH Even an in.ormant o. le00er
relia<ilit- can <e enough i. the in.ormant Bredict0 .uture action0 and detail0. DraBer v.
5nited State0" 3%$ 5.S. 3+7 I19%9;.
1n 5. S. v. (i)en" 7$+ (.2d 1434"I 9th Cir." 19$*;" the Court held the arre0t =a0
la=.ul and <a0ed on /CC. H&he in.ormer" enli0ted <- the Bolice" met =ith the de.endant to
arrange deliver- o. 0ome cocaine9 he then told Bolice that the 0ource o. 0uBBl- =a0 a
6atin male .rom 6o0 ,ngele0. &he de.endant =a0 0urveilled traveling to 6o0 ,ngele0
=here" in a 0erie0 o. move0 aBBarentl- de0igned to di0courage detection" he aBBeared to
o<tain a <ro=n BaBer <ag .rom a 6atin male. 5Bon hi0 arre0t" cocaine =a0 .ound in the
<ag.H ,lthough veri.ication o. .act0 .rom the in.ormer>0 0tor- =a0 largel- o.HinnocentH
<ehavior" credi<ilit- =a0 enhanced <- the accurac- and detail o. the in.ormation given.
- 36 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
:enerall-" BoliceCD, are not reAuired to di0clo0e in.ormantP0 identit-
De.endant0 al=a-0 =ant to ?no= the identit- o. an in.ormant .or o<viou0 rea0on0
**
0uch a0 threat0 to ma?e the in.ormant change hi0 0tor- or to lie a<out in.ormation given to
Bolice" and 0ometime0 more dra0tic mean0. &he .ollo=ing ca0e0 e)Blain the vie= o.
.ederal court0 on the i00ue o. in.ormant di0clo0ure.
1n 5.S. v. (i)en I0uBra; &he trial court re.u0ed identi.-ing the CC1 and the 9th
Circuit uBheld that ruling. H, BroBer <alance deBend0 on the Barticular circum0tance0 o.
each ca0e" con0ideration o. crime charged" Bo00i<le de.en0e0" Bo00i<le 0igni.icance o. the
in.ormer>0 te0timon-" and other relevant .actor0.H
,lthough the in.ormer>0 Brivilege mu0t give =a- =here the di0clo0ure o. the
in.ormant>0 identit- Hi0 relevant and helB.ul to the de.en0e o. an accu0ed" or i0 e00ential to
a .air determination o. a cau0e"H the <urden i0 on the de.endant to demon0trate the need
.or the di0clo0ure.
, trial court need not reAuire di0clo0ing the identit- o. a relia<le in.ormant =here
the 0ole ground .or 0ee?ing that in.ormation i0 to e0ta<li0h the e)i0tence o. Bro<a<le
cau0e .or arre0t. (i)en>0 reAue0t .or di0clo0ure e)Bre00e0 hi0 concern there ma- not have
<een an in.ormant or that Bolice lied a0 to the in.ormation related to them. ,n in camera
hearing I=ithout Bre0ence o. de.endant or hi0 la=-er; could have 0erved to alla- the0e
.ear0:
&hrough di0clo0ure o. the in.ormer>0 identit- to the trial Judge" and 0uch
0u<0eAuent inAuirie0 <- the Judge a0 ma- <e nece00ar-" the :overnment can <e Brotected
.rom an- 0igni.icant" unnece00ar- imBairment o. 0ecrec-" -et the de.endant can <e 0aved
- 37 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.rom =hat could <e 0eriou0 Bolice mi0conduct.
Nonethele00" a di0trict court need not conduct an in camera hearing =henever the
identit- o. an in.ormant i0 reAue0ted.
1n 5.S. v. :ordon" 173 (.3d 7*1 I1+th Cir. 1999; the court held that a de.endant
0ee?ing to .orce di0clo0ure o. an in.ormant>0 identit- ha0 the <urden to 0ho= the
in.ormant>0 te0timon- i0 relevant or e00ential to the .air determination o. de.endant>0 ca0e.
H8here it i0 clear that the in.ormant cannot aid the de.en0e" the government>0 intere0t in
?eeBing 0ecret the in.ormant>0 identit- mu0t Brevail over the de.endant>0 a00erted right o.
di0clo0ure.H
&he in.ormant>0 role in :ordon>0 arre0t =a0 e)tremel- limited. 2e did not detain
:ordon" and did not BarticiBate in or =itne00 :ordon>0 detention or the tran0action in
=hich :ordon BurBortedl- agreed to tran0Bort cocaine in e)change .or mone-. 8e have
re.u0ed di0clo0ure in 0imilar ca0e0 =here the in.ormant ha0 limited in.ormation" =a0 not
Bre0ent during commi00ion o. the o..en0e" and cannot Brovide an- evidence that i0 not
cumulative or e)culBator-.
1n 5.S. v. 2ic?man" 1%1 (.3d 44* I%th Cir. 199$; I!ever0ed on other ground0 in
179 (.3d 23+ I%th Cir. 199$;" the court held that it =a0 not nece00ar- to di0clo0e the
identit- o. an in.ormant.N&hi0 circuit ha0 cra.ted a three'Bart te0t to determine =hether
di0clo0ure o. a ICC1P0; identit- i0 nece00ar-. 8e e)amine: 1; the in.ormant>0 degree o.
involvement in the crime9 2; the helB.ulne00 o. the di0clo0ure to the de.en0e9 and 3; the
:overnment>0 intere0t in non di0clo0ure. ,0 to the .ir0t Brong" =e have held that mere
HtiB0ter0H are not 0o clo0el- related to a crime a0 to reAuire the di0clo0ure o. their identit-.
*7
- 38 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1n 5.S. v. 4angum" 1++ (.3d 1*4 IDC Cir. 199*; 4angum argued that he
needed to intervie= the ICC1; in order to determine =hether the CC1 might have Blanted
the gun in the ?naB0ac? in order to helB 0ecure an arre0t and curr- .avor =ith the
government. 2e never cited an- 0Beci.ic .act0 0uBBorting hi0 motion to di0clo0e the
identit- o. the in.ormant" <ut merel- =anted to intervie= the ICC1; <ecau0e the ICC1;
might Bo00e00 in.ormation that could e)culBate him.
&he court .ound that the de.endant =a0 not entitled to ?no= the ICC1P0; identit-
H<ecau0e there i0 no evidence in the record 0uBBorting the De.endant>0 0Beculation that
the ICC1; activel- BarticiBated in the o..en0e.H 2e .ailed to meet hi0 <urden <- H0ho=ing
that the in.ormant>0 te0timon- i0 nece00ar- to hi0 de.en0e 0o a0 to Ju0ti.- Blacing the
in.ormant>0 0a.et- in JeoBard-.H
M4ere 0Beculation that the ICC1; ma- Bo00i<l- <e o. 0ome a00i0tance i0 in0u..icient
to meet thi0 <urden. &o overcome the Bu<lic intere0t in Brotection o. the ICC1;"H the
de.endant mu0t 0ho= that the ICC1; =a0 Han actual BarticiBant in or a =itne00 to the
o..en0e charged"H and identit- i0 Hnece00ar- to the de.en0e.H
5.S. v. (ield0" 113 (.3d 313 I2d Cir. 1997; :overnment i0 not generall- reAuired
to di0clo0e the identit- o. ICC1P0;. 1t0 intere0t in Brotecting anon-mit- o. ICC1P0; =ho
.urni0h in.ormation regarding violation0 o. la= i0 0trong'' =ithholding a ICC1P0; identit-
imBrove0 the chance0 that the Ber0on =ill continue Broviding in.ormation and encourage0
Botential ICC1P0; to aid the government.
&he de.endant <ear0 the <urden o. 0ho=ing the need .or di0clo0ure o. a ICC1P0;
identit-" and mu0t e0ta<li0h that" a<0ent 0uch di0clo0ure" he =ill <e deBrived o. hi0 right to
a .air trial.
- 39 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Even i." a0 the de.endant0 claim" the in.ormant>0 in.ormation =a0 uncorro<orated
and con0tituted the <ul? o. the Bro<a<le cau0e uBon =hich the Bolice relied" the di0trict
court>0 in camera intervie= o. the ICC1;" conducted =ith a vie= to matter0 de.en0e coun0el
identi.ied in =riting a0 Botentiall- relevant" adeAuatel- Brotected de.endant0> right0. ,n in
camera intervie= o. a ICC1;that .ind0 no I0u<0tantial; incon0i0tenc- =ith Bolice te0timon-
can mitigate an- concern that the ICC1P0; te0timon- =ould in .act <e u0e.ul to the de.en0e
5.S. v. @ime" 99 (.3d $7+ I$th Cir. 199*;. @ime argue0 that the di0clo0ure o.
C1P0 identit- =a0 nece00ar- to te0t the veracit- o. hi0 or her in.ormation and the Auantum
o. Bro<a<le cau0e <ehind the a..idavit o..ered in 0uBBort o. the aBBlication .or the
interceBtion o. =ire and oral communication0. But @ime o..er0 no <a0i0 other than <ald
0Beculation .or hi0 a00ertion that 0uch a di0clo0ure and an oBBortunit- to intervie= C1'1
=ould allo= him to imBeach C1'1>0 a..idavit te0timon-. &he movant>0 <urden HreAuire0
more than mere 0Beculation that the te0timon- o. the in.ormant might Brove to <e helB.ul
to the de.en0e.H
1n.ormation .rom #ictim or 8itne00
:ate0" held that citiOen'in.ormant i0 Bre0umed relia<le unli?e a criminal C1
1n Ea0ton v. Cit- o. Boulder Colorado" 77* (.2d 1441I1+th Cir. 19$%;
&he Court held that M=hen e)amining in.ormant evidence u0ed to 0uBBort claim o.
*$
Bro<a<le cau0e .or =arrant .or arre0t" or =arrantle00 arre0t" 0?eBtici0m and care.ul
0crutin- u0uall- .ound in ca0e0 involving in.ormant0" 0ometime0 anon-mou0" .rom
criminal milieu" i0 aBBroBriatel- rela)ed i. in.ormant i0 identi.ied victim or ordinar-
citiOen =itne00.
- 40 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Becau0e citiOen =itne00e0 are Bre0umBtivel- relia<le" the o..icer0 in thi0 0ituation
had no dut- to e)amine .urther the <a0i0 o. the =itne00> ?no=ledge or tal? =ith another
=itne00e0. &he BroBo0ition that Brivate citiOen =itne00e0 or crime victim0 are Bre0umed
relia<le doe0 not Hdi0Ben0e =ith the reAuirement that the in.ormant ... .urni0h underl-ing
.act0 0u..icientl- detailed to cau0e a rea0ona<le Ber0on to <elieve a crime had <een
committed and the named 0u0Bect =a0 the BerBetrator.H IKu0t a0 Bolice need to 0tate .act0
learned <- them to Ju0ti.- !CS or /CC;
5.S. v. Butler" 74 (.3d 91* I9th Cir.199*; Court held M-ou loo? at the totalit- o.
the circum0tance0 to determine /CC. M/CC can <e <a0ed on hear0a- ... or on in.ormation
rela-ed through o..icial Bolice channel0 ... and through the collective ?no=ledge o. Bolice
o..icer0 involved in an inve0tigation even i. 0ome o. thi0 in.ormation =a0 not ?no=n <-
the arre0ting o..icer Iand; i. an unAue0tiona<l- hone0t citiOen come0 .or=ard =ith a
reBort o. criminal activit- =hich i. .a<ricated =ould 0u<Ject him to criminal lia<ilit- =e
have .ound rigorou0 0crutin- o. the <a0i0 o. ?no=ledge unnece00ar-.N
&ang=all v. Stuc?e-" 13% (.3d %1+ I7th Cir. 199$; Court held that H8hen an
o..icer received hi0 in.ormation .rom 0ome Ber0on''normall- the Butative victim or e-e
=itne00''=ho it 0eem0 rea0ona<le to <elieve i0 telling the truth"> he ha0I/CC;.H No deeB0eated
logic or rationale underlie0 thi0 BrinciBle. I/CC; i0 a common 0en0e determination"
mea0ured under a rea0ona<lene00 0tandard.
Sharrar v. (el0ing" 12$ (.3d $1+ I3rd Cir. 1997; Court held that MEven i. the
o..icer heard the victimP0 claim that another Ber0on attac?ed her it =a0 rea0ona<le .or the
o..icer to a00e00 her demeanor" .ind her 0tor- credi<le" and rel- on her 0u<0eAuent
identi.ication o. her hu0<and a0 the attac?er. 8hen an o..icer ha0 received a relia<le 1D
- 41 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<- a victim o. hi0 or her attac?er" the Bolice have /CC to arre0t. Same ruling 6ee v.
Sand<erg" 13* (.3d 94 I2d Cir. 1997;.
3..icial Channel0
8hitle- v. 8arden" 4+1 5.S. %*+ I1971; I(ello= o..icer rule;. ,n o..icer =ho
doe0 not Ber0onall- Bo00e00 0u..icient in.ormation to con0titute Bro<a<le cau0e ma-
neverthele00 ma?e a valid arre0t i. he act0 uBon the direction or a0 a re0ult o. a
communication .rom a .ello= o..icer and the Bolice" a0 a =hole" Bo00e00 0u..icient
in.ormation to con0titute Bro<a<le cau0e. /eoBle v. (reeman" **$ /.2d 1371 IColo.
19$3;.
1n Doleman v. State" 1+7 Nev. 4+9 I1991;" Bolice arre0ted a murder 0u0Bect <a0ed
on in.ormation .rom an in.ormant and citiOen =itne00 I.act0 are 0ome=hat comBlicated;.
Even though the arre0ting o..icer ma- not have <een a=are o. each and ever- .act
included in the Bro<a<le cau0e" collectivel- he and the other o..icer0 involved in the
inve0tigation did Bo00e00 Bro<a<le cau0e and thi0 made the arre0t valid. &hi0 deci0ion
*9
e)tend0 the H.ello= o..icerH rule to it0 .ulle0t.
/er0onal 3<0ervation0 <- Bolice
&hi0 i0 the mo0t common ingredient o. Bro<a<le cau0e ' =hat -ou 0ee" hear" 0mell"
.eel or ta0te ma- give Bro<a<le cau0e <- it0el. or a0 corro<oration o. in.ormation received
.rom in.ormant.
Di0creBanc- <et=een in.ormation received and 0u0Bect con.ronted
&hi0 doe0 not automaticall- mean that there i0 no Bro<a<le cau0e. Some
di0creBancie0 normal due to human nature. Bro=n v. 5. S." 3*% (.2d 97* ID.C. Cir.
- 42 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19**;" =here Bolice had de0criBtion o. ro<<er a0 <lac? male" driving maroon 19%4 (ord
and a<out a mile a=a-" minute0 later" Bolice 0a= car =hich =a0 19%2 maroon (ord and
had occuBant =ith di..erent clothing and height =a0 *H o.. '' 2eld: Bro<a<le cau0e
e)i0ted" de0Bite the di0creBanc- to 0toB the car and arre0t occuBant.
5.S. v. &ilmon" 19 (.3d 1221 I7th Cir.1994; /olice had /CC to arre0t &ilmon .or
<an? ro<<er- once he 0teBBed out o. car and o..icer0 could comBare him =ith de0criBtion
o. ro<<er" due to .act that Bolice alread- identi.ied hi0 di0tinctivel- mar?ed car9 although
de.endant =ore di..erent clothe0 .rom tho0e de0cri<ed <- ro<<er- e-e=itne00e0" and t=o
hour0 had Ba00ed 0ince ro<<er-.
6allemand v. 5. !. 1. " 9 (.3d 214 I10t Cir. 1993; ,..idavit =hich 0et .orth
victim>0 ver0ion o. raBe and .ollo=ed it =ith de0criBtion o. victim 0electing arre0tee>0
BhotograBh .rom Bicture arra- and Bo0itivel- identi.-ing him a0 the man =ho raBed her
Brovided Bro<a<le cau0e .or arre0t" even though there =ere di0creBancie0 <et=een
arre0tee>0 aBBearance and de0criBtion o. the BerBetrator.
5.S. v. #aleO" 79* (.2d 24 I2nd Cir. 19$*; 3<0erving o..icer>0 de0criBtion o.
cocaine 0eller =a0 adeAuatel- detailed" de0Bite hi0 0ilence on matter o. 0eller>0 .acial hair"
and de.endant" =ho =a0 in immediate area o. drug tran0action" 0u..icientl- .it de0criBtion
to give another o..icer Bro<a<le cau0e to arre0t de.endant =ithin 0hort 0Bace o. time
.ollo=ing tran0action.
*. N3 NEED &3 M/!ESE!#EN /!3B,B6E C,5SE
(reAuentl- an o..icer 0toB0 Ior arre0t0; a Ber0on .or a 0mall o..en0e and then
continue0 the inve0tigation and .ind0 /CC .or a maJor crime. 1n 0uch ca0e0" the o..icer
o.ten doe0nPt MchargeN the Ber0on =ith the initial" 0ometime0 Bett-" o..en0e. 1n the Ba0t
- 43 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0ome Judge0 have ruled that thi0 ma?e0 the entire arre0t <ad <ecau0e the o..icer didnPt
MBre0erve the Bro<a<le cau0e.N &hi0 i0 not the la=. 1n Scott v. State" 11+ Nev. *22
I1994; the de.endant =a0 in a car 0toBBed .or an imBroBerl- a..i)ed licen0e Blate. ,.ter
the 0toB it =a0 determined that Scott =a0 an e)'.elon and had a gun. 2e =a0 arre0ted .or
that" <ut no citation =a0 i00ued. &he Nevada SuBreme Court 0aid thi0 made no di..erence
in the validit- o. the 0toB. 1n 5.S. v. 8ood-" %% (.3d 12%7 I7th Cir. 199%; the court 0aid"
7+
M,n arre0t ma- <e Ber.ectl- rea0ona<le even i. the Bolice o..icer ultimatel- doe0 not
charge the 0u0Bect =ith the o..en0e giving ri0e to the o..icerP0 Bro<a<le cau0e
determination.
7. 82EN 8,!!,N& NEEDED 1N ,!!ES& S1&5,&13N
&he SuBreme Court 0aid in 5. S. v. 8at0on" 423 5.S. 411 I197*;" that -ou don>t
need an arre0t =arrant .or a la=.ul arre0t in a Bu<lic Blace ''Bro<a<le cau0e i0 enough"
even i. -ou had time to get an arre0t =arrant. Same ruling in (lorida v. 8hite" %2* 5.S.
%%9 I1999;" 5.S. v. 6evine" $+ (.3d 129 I199*;" 5.S. v. Sno=" $2 (.3d 93% I1+th
Cir.199*;" and numerou0 other ca0e0.
M&he SuBreme Court ha0 re.u0ed to attach 0igni.icance to the .act that the Bolice
had amBle time to get an arre0t =arrant <ut declined to do 0o. (or an arre0t in a Bu<lic
Blace ... the onl- reAuirement i0 Bro<a<le cau0e.N 5.S. v. De4a0i" 4+ (.3d 13+* I10t
Cir.1994;.
&here are t=o 0ituation0 =here a =arrant mu0t <e o<tained in arre0t 0ituation0
Iunle00 Bolice can Brove an emergenc- or con0ent e)ceBtion e)i0t0; <oth involving entr-
into Bremi0e0 to arre0t. &he0e are the H/,7&3N !56EH and the HS&E,:,6D
- 44 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
!56E.H
Ia; D1SC5SS13N 3N /,7&3N !56E
/a-ton v. Ne= 7or?" 44% 5.S. %73 I19$+;" the court held that Bolice cannot ma?e
a =arrantle00 non'con0en0ual entr- into a 0u0Bect>0 home to ma?e an arre0t unle00 e)igent
circum0tance0 e)i0t.
1n /a-ton" Bolice develoBed BCc to arre0t 0u0Bect .or murder occurring t=o da-0
earlier. /olice =ent to 0u0Bect>0 home =here light0 =ere on and mu0ic Bla-ing. 8hen
no<od- an0=ered ?noc? or door" Bolice made entr-. /a-ton =a0n>t home <ut 0hell ca0ing
to murder =eaBon =a0 in Blain vie= and =a0 0eiOed.
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court ordered thi0 evidence 0uBBre00ed 0tating that the Brivac-
intere0t in a home =a0 ver- high and Bolice needed either an arre0t =arrant .or /a-ton Ior
a 0earch =arrant .or hi0 home; to enter hi0 home.
,lthough the 5.S. SuBreme Court ha0 not decided all Bo00i<le 0u<'i00ue0 that
ari0e a.ter /a-ton ' the .ollo=ing rule0 have <een aBBlied <- high ran?ing State and
(ederal court0.
I1; 1. Bolice are other=i0e la=.ull- in a Ber0on>0 home" .or e)amBle" =ith a 0earch
=arrant" and Bro<a<le cau0e to arre0t aBBear0 it i0 3@ to arre0t =ithout arre0t =arrant.
4ahl<erg v. 4entOer" 9*$ (.2d 772 I$th Cir. 1992;" Kone0 v. Cit- o. Denver" $%4 (.2d
12+* I1+th Cir. 19$$;.
I2; 1n /eoBle v. 8hite" %12 N.E.2d *77 I1ll. 19$7;"the court held that =hether a
71
Blace i0 HhomeH deBend0 on thing0 li?e length o. 0ta-" regular u0e" relation0hiB to other
occuBant0" 0toring Bo00e00ion0 there and Ba-ment o. rent.
- 45 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I3; &he /a-ton rule can <e violated even i. Bolice don>t Bh-0icall- enter the
home" 0o held in 8alter0 v. State" 1+* Nev. 4% I199+;. 8alter0 <ecame a 0u0Bect in a
murder ca0e. &he ne)t morning" =ithout o<taining a =arrant" Bolice u0ed a helicoBter
and <ullhorn and ordered him out o. hi0 home. 2e comBlied" =a0 arre0ted" and =a0 given
4iranda =arning0 and gave an incriminating 0tatement during the 1++ mile drive to the
Bolice 0tation. &he Court held the 0tatement 0hould <e 0uBBre00ed 0ince 8alter0 =a0
technicall- arre0ted in hi0 home I<- 0urrounding it =ith Bolice and ordering him out;
=ithout a =arrant and the con.e00ion =a0 the H.ruitH o. an illegal =arrantle00 arre0t.
INote: &hi0 =a0 overruled a.ter the 5.S. SuBreme Court deci0ion in Ne= 7or? v. 2arri0"
11+ S.Ct. 1*4+ I199+; holding that even a.ter /a-ton violation Bolice giving 4iranda
a=a- .rom re0idence or at Bolice 0tation 3@P0 interrogation;.
3ther court0 have ruled the 0ame in H0urroundH orH<ullhornH ca0e0. 5. S. v.
,OOa=-" 7$4 (.2d $9+ I9th Cir. 19$%;" 5. S. v. 4aeO" $72 (.2d 1444 I1+th Cir. 19$9;" 5.
S. v. 4organ" 744 (.2d 121% I*th Cir. 19$4;.
I4; &he /a-ton rule aBBlie0 to the 0u0Bect>0 Blace o. <u0ine00 a0 =ell a0 hi0 home.
I%; 4o0t court0 hold in addition to the =arrant reAuirement Bolice al0o need
Mrea0ona<le <elie.N Inot Bro<a<le cau0e; to <elieve a Barticular Bremi0e0 i0 that o. the
0u0Bect and that the 0u0Bect i0 HhomeH at the time o. Bolice entr-. 5.S. v. !i00e" $3 (.2d
212 I$th Cir. 199*;Ho..icer0 e)ecuting an arre0t =arrant mu0t have a >rea0ona<le <elie. that
the 0u0Bect re0ide0 at the Blace to <e entered ... and have rea0on to <elieve that the 0u0Bect
i0 Bre0ent> at the time the =arrant i0 e)ecuted. &he 0u0BectP0 home mean0 he ha0 common
authorit- or 0ome other 0igni.icant relation0hiB to the Bremi0e0 even i. the Bremi0e0 i0
o=ned <- a 3rd Ber0onH M!ea0ona<le <elie.N ruling .ollo=ed in 5.S. v. 6auter" %7 (.3d
- 46 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
212 I2d Cir.199%; 5.S. v. 4agluta" 44 (.3d 1%3+I11th Cir.199%;5.S. v. !oute" 1+4 (.3d
%9I%th Cir.199*;.
1n #aldeO v. /heter0" 172 (.3d 122+ I1+th Cir. 1999; Court held that the BroBer
inAuir- i0 =hether there i0 a rea0ona<le <elie. that the 0u0Bect re0ide0 at the Blace to <e
entered ... and =hether the o..icer0 have rea0on to <elieve that the 0u0Bect i0 Bre0ent. 1n
5.S. v. Edmond0" %2 (.3d 123* I3d Cir.199%; although Hthe in.ormation availa<le to the
agent0 clearl- did not e)clude the Bo00i<ilit- that the 0u0Bect =a0 not in the aBartment"
the agent0 had rea0ona<le ground0 .or concluding that he =a0 there.
1n 5nited State0 v. ,l<re?t0en" 1%1 (.3d 9%1 I9th Cir.199$; the court recentl-
cited =ith aBBroval <oth !oute and !i00e .or the BroBo0ition that o..icer0 e)ecuting an
arre0t =arrant mu0t have H0ome rea0on to <elieve that the de.endant might live at and <e
Bre0ent =ithin the Bremi0e0H entered" ma?ing no mention o. an- higher 0tandard o.
?no=ledge.
I*; No need to have =arrant in hand. 8henever Bo00i<le o..icer0 0hould have a
coB- o. the arre0t =arrant" <ut a0 long a0 a .ello= o..icer con.irm0 that the =ritten 0igned
72
=arrant i0 in e)i0tence thi0 i0 0u..icient. 5.S. v. 4unoO" 1%+ (.3d 4+1 I%th Cir. 199$;.
I7; 4i0demeanor =arrant0. 8henever Bo00i<le o..icer0 0hould not ma?e a .orced
home entr- to 0erve a mi0demeanor arre0t =arrant. 2o=ever" N!S 171.13$ aBBear0 to
contemBlate a hou0e entr- to ma?e arre0t on a mi0demeanor =arrant. See al0o" Kone0 v.
State" %13 So. 2d $ I,la. 19$*;" 6-on0 v. State" 7$7 /.2d 4*+ I3?la. 19$9;. &he Nevada
SuBreme Court imBlied in 2atle- v. State" 1++ Nev. 214 I19$4;" that Bolice could ma?e
an in home arre0t on a mi0demeanor =arrant a0 long a0 it =a0 not a Brete)t to gain
- 47 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence re.erence an unrelated .elon- inve0tigation.
I$; 50e o. !u0e. N3&E: 7ou cannot u0e a ru0e to gain entr- into a Bremi0e0 to
avoid the /a-ton =arrant reAuirement. 2o=ever" the maJorit- o. ca0e0 on thi0 i00ue hold
that -ou can u0e a ru0e to get the 0u<Ject =hom -ou =i0h to arre0t I=ithout a =arrant; to
e)it the re0idence.
&he rationale o. the0e ca0e0 i0 roc?'0olid. &he BurBo0e o. the /a-ton rule i0 to
Brevent =arrantle00 Bolice entrie0 into a re0idence to arre0t. Since Bolice can legall-
arre0t out0ide a re0idence =ith Bro<a<le cau0e and =ithout a =arrant" =hat di..erence
doe0 it ma?e i. Bolice u0e a ru0e to get the 0u0Bect to leave the Bremi0e0 in0tead o.
=aiting out0ide until the 0u0Bect le.t on hi0 o=nD &he an0=er i0 o<viou0 ' no di..erence
and no /a-ton violation.
73
&he .ollo=ing ca0e0 uBheld u0e o. a ru0e to get Ber0on out o. Bremi0e0:
1n 5.S. v. !engi.o" $%$ (.2d $++ I10t Cir. 19$$; , government agent>0 teleBhone
call to de.endant0> motel room =arning them that there had <een HBro<lem0H =ith a
cocaine deliver- and that it =ould <e <e0t i. the- le.t the room and the area did not
imBroBerl- avoid reAuirement .or arre0t =arrant <- arti.iciall- creating e)igent
circum0tance.
1n 5.S. v. #a0iliavitch" 919 (. SuBB. 1113 IND 1llinoi0" 199*; &he Court held
that M court0 have .ound no con0titutional violation =hen Bolice o..icer0 u0e tactic0 o.
mi0in.ormation to 0olve crime0. 4o0t Brominent i0 the SuBreme Court>0 19*9 deci0ion in
(raOier v. CuBB" 394 5.S. 731 I19*9; in =hich Ku0tice 4ar0hall held that an o..icer>0 lie
to the de.endant that hi0 co'con0Birator had con.e00ed =a0 in0u..icient to ma?e an
- 48 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
other=i0e voluntar- con.e00ion inadmi00i<le. &he ru0e at i00ue in (raOier =a0
0u<0tantiall- more 0eriou0 in it0 0coBe and it0 con0eAuence than the ru0e here. &he
de.endant in (raOier =a0 tric?ed into ma?ing a .ull con.e00ion.N
1n thi0 ca0e" the o..icer>0 u0e o. tric?er- onl- o<tained #a0iliavitchiou0> arre0t" an
inevita<le con0eAuence 0ince the o..icer0 had Bro<a<le cau0e. 5n0urBri0ingl- the court0
have uBheld the u0e o. 0u<ter.uge to tric? a de.endant into leaving hi0 home on man-
occa0ion0 under circum0tance0 ver- 0imilar to the one0 here. /eoBle v. 8ither0Boon"
%7* N.E.2d 1+3+" I1llinoi0" 1991; IH&he u0e o. deceBtion to lure a de.endant .rom hi0
home in order to e..ectuate an arre0t =ithout a =arrant ha0 <een held not to violate
.undamental .airne00.H;
I<; D1SC5SS13N 3( S&E,:,6D !56E
Steagald v. 5nited State0" 4%1 5.S. 2+4 I19$1;" held that =hile an arre0t =arrant
doe0 Bermit entr- into the 0u0Bect>0 o=n home to e..ect the arre0t" it doe0 not allo= Bolice
to enter a third Ber0on>0 home in 0earch o. the 0u0Bect. ,<0ent either con0ent or e)igent
circum0tance0" Bolice mu0t have a 0eBarate 0earch =arrant authoriOing them to enter the
third Ber0on>0 home.
I1; &he 0earch =arrant =ill reAuire not onl- a 0ho=ing o. Bro<a<le cau0e that the
0u0Bect i0 in0ide the third Ber0on>0 re0idence" <ut a 0ho=ing o. =h- it i0 rea0ona<le to
0ee? the 0earch =arrant and ma?e the entr- to arre0t a0 oBBo0ed to =aiting .or 0u0Bect to
deBart and arre0t el0e=here.
I2; &he Steagald rule al0o aBBlie0 to <u0ine00 o..ice0 and other area0 =here there
i0 a high rea0ona<le and legitimate e)Bectation o. Brivac-.
Civil 6ia<ilit-
- 49 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1n addition to 0uBBre00ion o. evidence" Bolice andCor Di0trict ,ttorne-0 ma- <e
civill- lia<le .or /a-ton'Steagald violation0.
74
1n /em<aur v. Cit- o. Cincinnati" 1+* S.Ct. 1292 I19$*;" /em<aur" a doctor"
=a0 indicted <- grand Jur- .or =el.are .raud. Su<Boena0 =ere i00ued .or t=o o. hi0
emBlo-ee0 and =hen the- .ailed to aBBear" =arrant0 .or their arre0t i00ued. &he t=o
emBlo-ee0 =ere located at the /em<aur>0 clinic" <ut he" /em<aur" re.u0ed to admit the
o..icer0 0erving the =arrant. &he o..icer0 called the Di0trict ,ttorne- =ho advi0ed the
o..icer0 to Hgo in and getH the t=o emBlo-ee0. &he- comBlied. /em<aur .iled a 0uit
under 42 5.S.C. 0ection 19$3 alleging a violation o. hi0 (ourth and (ourteenth
,mendment right0. 2e 0ued the Count-" the o..icer0 and the Di0trict ,ttorne- .or 2+
million dollar0.
&he 5. S. SuBreme Court 2eld: &he D, =a0 imBlementing Ho..icial Bolic-.H 1n
thi0 ca0e" the D, had the .inal authorit- in 0uch matter0" there.ore" the municiBalit-
Ho..iciall-H 0anctioned the uncon0titutional and tortiou0 conduct. &here.ore" the Count-
i0 lia<le. I1mBortant note: Count- and Bolice Bolic- u0uall- re0ulted in Di0trict ,ttorne-
ma?ing the0e deci0ion0 and a 0tate la= granted the Di0trict ,ttorne- the authorit- to give
0uch legal in0truction0.;
S4E66" 2E,!1N: ,ND &35C21N: 7. !elated to oBen vie= are Ia; oBen 0mell and I<; non'
electronic augmented hearing. &he court0 loo? at the0e <a0icall- the 0ame =a- and uBheld the
overhearing =ith the na?ed ear o. a Bhone conver0ation at an unenclo0ed teleBhone in a Bu<lic Blace.
- 50 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5nited State0 v. 4uc?enthaler" %$4 (.2d 24+ I$th Cir. 197$; and SiriBong0 v. Calderon" 3% (.3d 13+$
I9th Cir. 1994;. 1n 5.S. v. ,AuaBito" *2+ (.2d 324 I7th Cir. 19$+; and 5.S. v. 2e00ling" $4% (.2d *17
I*th Cir. 199$; the .act0 =ere the 0ame IBolice li0tened to conver0ation in adJoining hotel room
=ithout electronic eAuiBment Ina?ed ear;; and <oth court0 held no 4th ,mendment violation. Same
ruling in State v. 3rtiO" 2%7 Ne<. 7$4 I1999;. 2o=ever" in ca0e0 =here Bolice u0ed electronic
eAuiBment to augment hearing and gain in.ormation" virtuall- all court0 hold that thi0 i0 a 4th
,mendment Brivac- violation. $. 1n 5.S. v. :ault" 92 (.3d 99+ I1+th Cir. 199*; Bolice o..icer li.ted a
g-m <ag .rom the ai0le o. a train. &he court ruled that thi0 action =a0 not a 0earch. Similar .act0"
0ame ruling in 5.S. v. 8ard" 144 (.3d 1+24 I7th Cir. 199$; Smelling mariJuana coming .rom
Bac?age0 or <aggage i0 3@. Sim0 v. State" 42% So.2d %*3" I(la. 19$3;. 1n Bond v. 5.S." %29 5.S.
I2+++; the Court ruled that Bolice could not maniBulate a Ba00enger>0 0o.t luggage <ag =ithout
con0ent <ecau0e 0uch action =ould violate the Ba00enger>0 right to Brivac-. 9. 1n 5.S. v. 4cDonald"
1++ (.3d 132+ I7th Cir. 199*; and 5.S. v. :uOman" 7% (.3d 1+9+ I*th Cir. 199*; the Court0 <oth
ruled that a Bolice o..icer on a Bu<lic tran0Bortation vehicle could gra< and .eel I=ithout oBening;
<ag0 =hich =ere on overhead rac?0. 2o=ever" 0ome court0 hold that 0uch conduct <- Bolice i0 a
0earch" and i. 1$ done =ithout /CC" the re0ult0 =ould <e 0uBBre00ed. 5.S. v. Nichol0on" 144 (.3d *32
I1+th Cir. 199$;. 5SE 3( (6,S261:2&" B1N3C56,!S" E6EC&!3N1C DE#1CES 1+. &e)a0 v.
Bro=n" 1+3 S.Ct. 1%3% I19$3; held that u0ing a .la0hlight to 0ee 0omething at night =hich =ould
have <een in the oBen during the da- did not violate the (ourth ,mendment. See al0o State v. 8right"
1+4 Nev. %21 I19$$;" =hich 3@>d 0hining a .la0hlight into a car" and State v. Calvillo" 792 /.2d 11%7
IN.4. 199+;" =hich held that Bolice 0hining a .la0hlight into a re0idence =a0 not a 0earch. 3ther ca0e0
holding that u0e o. a .la0hlight to 0ee =hat could have <een 0een in da-light =a0 la=.ul are 5.S. v.
8illi0" 37 (.3d 313 I7th Cir. 1994; and 5.S. v. 3rtiO" *3 (.3d 19%2 I1+th Cir. 199%;. 11. &he great
- 51 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
maJorit- o. deci0ion0 have held that u0e o. an air<orne H(61!H device to detect heat coming .rom
Bremi0e0 =a0 not a 0earch under the (ourth ,mendment. 5nited State0 v. /enn-'(eene-" 773 (.
SuBB. 22+ I2a=. 1991; IuBheld on other ground0 <ut no 0Beci.ic holding .or or again0t the (61! in
thi0 ca0e in the 9th Cir.. /enn-'(eene- 9$4 (.2d 1+%3 I9th Cir 1993;. 3ther court0 aBBroving (61! a0
a Mnon 0earchN are 5nited State0 v. Deaner" 1 (.3d 192 I3rd Cir. 1993;9 5.S. v. 4-er0" 4* (.3d **$
I7th Cir. 199%;9 5.S. v. !o<in0on" *2 (.3d 132% I11th Cir. 199%;9 and 5.S. v. 10hmael" 4$ (.3d $%+
I%th Cir. 199%;. 5nited State0 v. @-llo" $+9 (. SuBB. 7$7 I3re. 1992; INote: &hi0 deci0ion =a0
rever0ed <- 9th Cir. 14+ (.3d 1249 I199$; <ut that deci0ion =a0 =ithdra=n and it i0 un?no=n no=
ho= the 9th Circuit =ill rule;.1n 5.S. v. Cu0amano" $3 (.3d 1247 I1+th Cir. 199*; the Court held that
the 0earch =arrant =hich included u0e o. (61! =a0 valid on the <a0i0 that there =a0 enough
additional /CC .or the =arrant. &he Court re.u0ed to rule on =hether the (61! =a0 a 0earch. , .e=
court0 have reached the oBBo0ite re0ult on u0e o. (61! 0a-ing that it =a0 a 0earch. 12. &here i0 a
con.lict in holding0 =ith regard to loo?ing into the interior o. a hou0e or an o..ice <uilding through a
tele0coBe or <inocular0. Some court0 0a- that it i0 an inva0ion on 4th ,mendment Brivac-. See 5. S.
v. &a<orda" *3% (.2d 131" 13$'39 I2d Cir.19$+;9 /eoBle v. ,rno" 1%3 Cal. !Btr. *24 I1979;9 5. S. v.
@im" 41% (.SuBB. 12%2" 12%%'%7 ID.2a=.197*;. But there i0 contrar- authorit- on tele0coBic and
<inocular o<0ervation" 0tating that it i0 not an inva0ion on 4th ,mendment Brivac-. Common=ealth v.
2ernle-" 2*3 ,.2d 9+4 I/enn.197+;" and dicta in t=o SuBreme Court deci0ion0" 3n 6ee v. 5. S." 343
5.S. 747 I19%2;" and 5. S. v. 6ee" 274 5.S. %%9 I1927; Several State SuBreme Court0 uBheld the
conceBt that u0e o. vi0ion enhancing device0 0uch a0 <inocular0 or night vi0ion 0coBe0 doe0 not
intrude on a rea0ona<le and legitimate e)Bectation o. Brivac-. State v. Carter" 79+ /.2d 11%2 I3re.
199+; Irever0ed in 19$$ on other ground0;" State v. #ogel" 42$ N.8.2d 272 IS.D. 19$$;" Sa-lor v.
State" 3*% S.E.2d 493 I:a. 19$$;. 13. 5. S. v. @nott0" 4*+ 5.S. 27* I19$3; Bolice But a <eeBer on a
- 52 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0u0BectP0 car and u0ed the <eeBer to trail the car. Court 0aid that 0ince the Bolice could have .ollo=ed
the car <- vi0ual 0urveillance a0 it moved around in Bu<lic area0" monitoring o. the <eeBer 0ignal0 did
not invade an- legitimate e)Bectation o. Brivac-. 19 /5B61C 5&161&7 ,ND B5S1NESS
!EC3!DS 14. /hone comBan- record0. Smith v. 4ar-land" 442 5.S. 73% I1979; 0aid Min all
Bro<a<ilit- a Ber0on had no actual e)Bectation o. Brivac- in the Bhone num<er0 he dialed" and even i.
he did" hi0 e)Bectation =a0 not legitimate.N Con0eAuentl-" the u0e o. a Ben regi0ter =a0 not a 0earch
and no =arrant =a0 reAuired. ISee 0ection on Electronic Surveillance in thi0 manual;. Same ruling
5.S. v. /lun?" 1%3 (.3d 1+11 I9th Cir. 199$; Mthere i0 no e)Bectation o. Brivac- in Bhone comBan-
record0.N 1%. 5nited State0 v. 4iller" 42% 5.S. 43% I197*; 0aid" M de.endant urge0 he ha0 a 4th
,mendment intere0t in record0 ?eBt <- Ihi0; <an?. Even =ith original chec?0 and deBo0it 0liB0" =e
Berceive no legitimate e)Bectation o. Brivac-.N 1*. 8e0tern 5nion cu0tomer0 have no Brivac- intere0t
in 8.5. record0 a0 the- are not the cu0tomer0P BroBert-. 1n re :rand Kur- Su<Boena Duce0 &ecum"
$27 (.2d 3+1 I$th Cir. 19$7;. 1n 5.S. v. /hi<<0" 999 (.2d 1+%3 I*th Cir. 1993; .ederal o..icial0 could
0u<Boena <u0ine00 record0" credit card0 and Bhone comBan- record0. &he in.ormation =a0 acce00i<le
to emBlo-ee0 o. tho0e comBanie0 during the normal cour0e o. <u0ine00" and there =a0 no 0tanding .or
the cu0tomer0 to comBlain <ecau0e there =a0 no e)Bectation o. Brivac-. 17. 1n Common=ealth v.
Cote" %%* N.E.2d 4% I4a00." 199+; the 4a00achu0ett0 SuBreme Court held that there =a0 no
e)Bectation o. Brivac- in me00age0 ta?en do=n <- a contracted an0=ering 0ervice a0 u0e o. 0uch
0ervice Mnece00aril- involved a conve-ance o. in.ormation to that third Bart-.N 1$. 1n State v.
4a).ield" $$* /.2d 123 I8a0h." 1994; the 8a0hington SuBreme Court held that there =a0 no
e)Bectation o. Brivac- in Bo=er con0umBtion record0.S&3/ ,ND (!1S@ I1N#ES&1:,&1#E
DE&EN&13N;: 41D6E#E6 C3N&,C& I1; &2E &E!!7 C,SE ,ND NE#,D, S&,&5&ES: 1n
19*$ the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid in &err- v. 3hio" 392 5.S. 1 I19*$; that Bolice could 0toB Iconduct
- 53 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an inve0tigative detention =here the 0u0Bect =a0 not .ree to leave; a Ber0on <a0ed on Harticula<le and
rea0ona<le 0u0BicionH that the Ber0on Hi0 committing" ha0 committed or i0 a<out to commit a crime"H
even =here there i0 not 4+ Bro<a<le cau0e .or an arre0t. 1. there i0 rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion in addition to
that =hich Ju0ti.ie0 the 0toB =hich cau0e0 -ou to <elieve the 0u0Bect ma- <e armed" -ou can Bat do=n
clothing .or =eaBon0. Ku0t <ecau0e H0toBH i0 legal and <a0ed on rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion doe0n>t
automaticall- mean that H.ri0?H i0 3@ too. Si<ron v. Ne= 7or?" 392 5.S. 4+ I19*$;. &err- i0 codi.ied
in N.!.S. 171.123 a0 .ollo=0: 171.123 &emBorar- detention <- Beace o..icer o. Ber0on 0u0Bected o.
criminal <ehavior: 6imitation0. 1. ,n- Beace o..icer ma- detain an- Ber0on =hom 0uch o..icer
encounter0 under circum0tance0 =hich rea0ona<l- indicate that 0uch Ber0on ha0 committed" i0
committing or i0 a<out to commit a crime. 2. &he o..icer ma- detain 0uch Ber0on onl- to a0certain the
identit- o. 0uch Ber0on and the 0u0Biciou0 circum0tance0 0urrounding hi0 Bre0ence a<road. ,n-
Ber0on 0o detained 0hall identi.- him0el." <ut ma- not <e comBelled to an0=er another inAuir- o.
an- Beace o..icer. 3. No Ber0on ma- <e detained longer than i0 rea0ona<l- nece00ar- to e..ect the
BurBo0e o. thi0 0ection" and in no event longer than *+ minute0. Such detention 0hall not e)tend
<e-ond the Blace or the immediate vicinit- o. the Blace =here the detention =a0 .ir0t e..ected. I19*9"
B.%3%9 1973" B.%97" 197%;. 171.1232 Search to a0certain Bre0ence o. dangerou0 =eaBon9 0eiOure o.
=eaBon or evidence. 1. 1. an- Beace o..icer rea0ona<l- <elieve0 that an- Ber0on =hom he ha0
detained or i0 a<out to detain Bur0uant to N!S 171.123 i0 armed =ith a dangerou0 =eaBon and i0 a
threat to the 0a.et- o. the Beace o..icer or another" the Beace o..icer ma- 0earch 0uch Ber0on to the
e)tent rea0ona<l- nece00ar- to a0certain the Bre0ence o. 0uch =eaBon. 1. the 0earch di0clo0e0 a
=eaBon or an- evidence o. a crime" 0uch =eaBon or evidence ma- <e 0eiOed. &he Aue0tion ari0e0 a0
to =hether the Bolice" during a M&err- t-Be 0toBN can la=.ull- reAuire that the Ber0on identi.- him or
her 0el.. 1n ,dam0 v. 8illiam0" 4+7 5.S. 143 I1972; =here the court .ound that a 0eiOure o. the
- 54 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ber0on had occurred" the court imBlied that Aue0tioning a0 to the Ber0onP0 identit- and a reAue0t .or
identi.ication =ere not in violation o. the 4th ,mendment. 1n Bro=n v. &e)a0" 443 5.S. 47 I1979; the
Bolice arre0ted Bro=n =hen he re.u0ed to identi.- him0el.. 2o=ever" the Court noted that the
inve0tigative 0toB o. Bro=n =a0 invalid <ecau0e Bolice had no rea0on to 0toB him. &he reAue0t .or 41
identi.ication" re.u0al and arre0t =ere M.ruit0 o. the Boi0oned tree.N 1n @olander v. 6a=0on" 4*1 5.S.
3%2 I19$3; a Cali. 0tate la= reAuired a Ber0on la=.ull- 0toBBed <- Bolice to Broduce a Mcredi<le and
relia<le id.N &he Court held that thi0 language =a0 uncon0titutionall- vague.
Neither ca0e held that it =a0 uncon0titutional .or Bolice to reAuire identi.ication .rom a Ber0on in a
la=.ul M&err- StoB.N 1n 4artinelli v. Cit- o. Beaumont" $2+ (.2d 491 I9th Cir. 19$7; the court ruled
that o..icer0 had rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion to 0toB the Ber0on" <ut the Cali.. Statute allo=ing arre0t i. the
Ber0on re.u0ed to identi.- him0el. =a0 uncon0titutional. &he 9th Circuit Court erroneou0l- con0trued
the 5.S. SuBreme CourtP0 deci0ion in @olander v. 6a=0on to Ju0ti.- thi0 ruling even though it i0 clear
that the 5.S. SuBreme Court ha0 never decided thi0 Aue0tion. 1n ,l<right v. !odrigueO" %1 (.3d 1%31
I1+th Cir. 199%; the court ruled that i. Bolice made a valid &err- 0toB" and the Ber0on re.u0ed to
identi.- him0el." and i. there =a0 a 0tate 0tatute =hich allo=ed Bolice to arre0t .or .ailure to identi.-"
then the reAue0t .or identi.ication" re.u0al and arre0t =a0 con0titutionall- valid. 1n State v. (l-nn" 2$%
N.8. 2d 71+ I8i0c. 1979;" cert. denied 449 5.S. $4* the Court noted language in ,dam0 v. 8illiam0
a 0toB and .ri0? ca0e =here the SuBreme Court 0aid that the o..icer in a <rie.Ivalid; 0toB Min order to
determine Ithe 0u0BectP0; identit-..ma- <e mo0t rea0ona<le.N &he (l-nn court noted that unle00 the
o..icer i0 entitled to a0certain the identit- o. the 0u0Bect" the &err- 0toB can 0erve no u0e.ul BurBo0e.
Same ruling in 5.S. v. Ba0e-" $1* (.2d 9$+ I%th Cir. 19$7;" State v. 6andr-" %$$ So.2d 34%I6a.
1991;. 1n 5.S. v. #anicromanee" 742 (.2d 34+ I7th Cir. 19$4; the Court held that mere detention i0
not an arre0t9 a Bolice o..icer ma-" 0hort o. an arre0t" detain an individual <rie.l- in order to determine
- 55 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hi0 identit- momentaril- =hile o<taining more in.ormation i. the o..icer ha0 articula<le .act0
0u..icient to give ri0e to !CS that the Ber0on had committed or i0 committing a crime. &he Nevada
SuBreme Court ha0 not ruled on thi0 i00ue although a reAuirement .or identi.ication i0 in N!S
171.123. &he ca0e0 o. Bro=n v. &e)a0 and @olander v 6a=0on do not rule on the identit-
reAuirement in N!S 171.123 I0ee detailed e)Blanation in ,l<right v. !odrigueO;. 5ntil the Nevada
SuBreme Court rule0 on thi0 i00ue" Bolice o..icer0 0hould <e 0elective in arre0ting .or .ailure to 1D
=ith .actor0 0uch a0 the 0trength o. the articula<le 0u0Bicion .or the 0toB and the t-Be o. crime
0u0Bected. (or e)amBle i. Bolice 0ee a Ber0on continuou0l- hanging around a grade 0chool =ith minor
children Bre0ent. a &err- 0toB i0 valid. 1. the Ber0on ha0 a Brior record .or mole0tation o. minor
children it =ould <e deva0tating .or the communit- i. the Bolice o..icer =a0 not Bermitted to reAue0t
identi.ication. , related i00ue a<out Bolice o<taining identi.ication during a valid &err- StoB i0 42
=hether Bolice can Bat do=n or 0earch the Ber0on .or documenta<le 1D 0uch a0 driverP0 licen0e. &he
ca0e0 in thi0 area are .e= and the validit- o. the Bractice i0 uncertain. 1n /eoBle v. 6ong" 2%4 Cal.
!Btr. 4$3 I19$7;" the o..icer had !CS to 0toB 6ong in a <ar =here he =a0 =ith an under aged girl. &he
o..icer a0?ed .or 1D and 6ong 0tated hi0 name <ut 0aid he didnPt have an- 1D. &he o..icer noted a
=allet 0iOed <ulge in hi0 rear Bant0 Boc?et" again a0?ed .or =ritten 1D and 6ong 0aid he had none. &he
o..icer directed 6ong to loo? through hi0 =allet" =hich 6ong did" and the o..icer 0a= 0ome Bla0tic
<aggie0 containing drug0. &he Court uBheld the o..icerP0 demand .or =ritten 1D" citing (l-nn and
,dam0 v. 8illiam0. Same ruling in /eoBle v. 6oudermil?" 194 Cal. ,BB.3d 447 I19$7; =here an
o..icer had !CS to 0toB a Ber0on 0u0Bected o. .iring a gun. /at do=n .elt =allet <ut Ber0on re.u0ed to
1D" and in 2arBer v. State" %32 So. 2d 1+91 I(la. 19$$;. 1n State v. (raOier" 31$ N.8. 2d 42 I4inn.
19$2; an o..icer 0toBBed a Ber0on and too? her Bur0e and reached in to get 1D and .ound a gun. &he
gun =a0 0uBBre00ed <ecau0e the court ruled that 0uch a 0earch =a0 uncon0titutional =ithout giving
- 56 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the detainee an oBBortunit- to voluntaril- Broduce 1D. I2; 82,& C3NS&1&5&ES , HS&3/H ,S
3//3SED &3 MN3NSE1Z5!EDN &he 2odari D. ca0e and the Bo0tic? ca0e de.ine the Bre'0toB or
Bre'0eiOure area. !emem<er a H&err- 0toBH i0 a .orm o. 0eiOure ' the Ber0on i0 not .ree to go. Dra=ing
the line <et=een a HBo0tic? encounterH and a H&err- 0toBH ha0 to <e done on a ca0e <- ca0e <a0i0.
!emem<er" the de.en0e la=-er =ill tr- to Bu0h the time o. the H&err- 0toBH a0 earl- a0 Bo00i<le in the
contact =hen the o..icer ha0 le00 articula<le 0u0Bicion" hoBing to Ber0uade the court that -ou made an
illegal &err- 0toB and i. 0o" =iBing out -our ca0e =ith a .ruit o. /.&. argument. C,SE EZ,4/6ES:
1. 5. S. v. :arcia" $** (.2d 147 I*th Cir. 19$9;" an imBortant .actor in di0tingui0hing 0eiOure0 .rom
ca0ual contact0 i0 =hen the Ber0on i0 a0?ed to accomBan- the Bolice to a Blace =here the Ber0on had
not Blanned to go. ,n o..icer ma- aBBroach a traveler in an airBort and a0? to 0Bea? to him" and
continue that conver0ation until a rea0ona<le Ber0on =ould no longer .eel that the Ber0on =a0 .ree to
go. 3nce that Boint ha0 <een reached" the o..icer mu0t have a rea0ona<le articula<le 0u0Bicion" or el0e
the 0toB or detention i0 illegal" and .ruit0 o. that 0earch mu0t <e 0uBBre00ed. :arcia =a0 not 0eiOure
<ecau0e Hthere =ere onl- t=o agent0 Bre0ent" no =eaBon =a0 di0Bla-ed" he =a0 not Bh-0icall-
touched " and the agent0 did not rai0e their voice0 or threaten him in an- =a-.H 2. 5.S. v. :la00" 12$
(.3d 139$ I1+th Cir. 1997; ha0 0ome .actor0 that court0 u0e in determining =hether a Bolice'citiOen
contact i0 a 0eiOure. &he0e .actor0 include: Ia; &elling a Ber0on that he i0 a 0u0Bect .or a Barticular
t-Be o. crime I<; &he num<er o. o..icer0 that are Bre0ent Ic; 4oving the conver0ation .rom Bu<lic to
Brivate Blace or =hether the contact 43 i0 in a Bu<lic or Brivate Blace Id; 8hether the Ber0on i0 told
that he need not tal? to the o..icer0 Ie; 8hether the Ber0onP0 egre00 =a0 <loc?ed 3. 5.S. v. @im" 27
(.3d 947 I3rd Cir. 1994; utiliOing e00entiall- the 0ame .actor0 in the :la00 ca0e =hich had <een
related in earlier 5S Circuit Court ca0e0 held that none o. the0e .actor0 alone i0 determinative
regarding =hether a 4th ,mendment 0eiOure o. the Ber0on occur0. 4. , .e= .ederal ca0e0 IBre
- 57 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bo0tic?; gave 0trong =eight in their anal-0i0 o. 0eiOure to a Bolice o..icerP0 a0?ing directl-
incriminating and .ocu0ed Aue0tion0" almo0t to the Boint o. Ber 0e rule ma?ing 0uch contact0 a
0eiOure. 5. S. v. Nunle-" $73 (.2d 1$2 I$th Cir.19$9; 5.S. v. Karamillo" $91 (.2d *2+ I7th Cir.19$9;
2o=ever" Nunle- =a0 modi.ied <- 5.S. v. /erdue" 9*1 (.2d 723 I$th Cir. 1992; and Karamillo =a0
rever0ed <- 5.S. v. 3rnela0'6ede0ma" 1* (.3d 714 I7th Cir. 1994;IBoth Bo0t Bo0tic? ca0e0;. %. 5.S.
v. CardoOa" 129 (.3d * I10t Cir 1997; De.endant =a0 not H0eiOedH =ithin meaning o. (ourth
,mendment <e.ore Bolice 0a= him =ith contra<and" even though Bolice crui0er turned =rong =a- uB
one'=a- 0treet" ma?ing clear o..icer>0 intent to come into contact =ith him" and o..icer0 a0?ed him
=hat he =a0 doing out at that time9 rea0ona<le Ber0on =ould not have concluded that he =a0 not .ree
to leave" a0 o..icer0 did not u0e .la0hing light0 or 0iren0" and o..icer0 did not a0? de.endant to 0toB" or
even to aBBroach Batrol car. &he re0ult" there.ore" Mi0 the directive that Bolice conduct" vie=ed .rom
the totalit- o. the circum0tance0" mu0t o<Jectivel- communicate that the o..icer i0 e)erci0ing o..icial
authorit- to re0train the individual>0 li<ert- o. movement <e.ore =e can .ind a 0eiOure occurred.N *.
5.S. v. !odrigueO'(ranco" 749 (.2d 1%%% I11th Cir. 19$%;" held that 1NS agent0 aBBroached a grouB
o. H2i0Banic loo?ingH Ber0on0 in a mall and a0?ed Aue0tion0 a<out citiOen0hiB and a0?ed Inot
commanding; t=o Ber0on0 to 0teB over to a <ench there =a0 no &err- 0toB. I&hi0 t-Be o. Bolice
Brocedure might argua<l- have <een imBroBer had it <een done <- other than 1NS agent0. See the
ne)t ca0e;. 1n 6oBeO v. :arriga" 917 (.2d *3 I10t Cir. 199+; an 1NS agent a0?ed Aue0tion0 o. Ber0on0
<e.ore <oarding airline0 in /uerto !ico. &he Court held that 1NS agent0 at an airBort gate ma-"
=ithout violating the Con0titution" inAuire a<out a Bro0Bective Ba00enger>0 citiOen0hiB and
de0tination. &he mere Bo0ing o. Aue0tion0 <- a government o..icial i0 not con0idered to <e a 0eiOure.
&he Court noted that under .ederal la=" the 1NS ha0 authorit- to a0? Aue0tion0 o. a Ber0on the- thin?
ma- <e violating immigration la=0. 7. 3Ohu=an v. State" 7$* /.2d 91$ I,la0?a" 199+;" held that a
- 58 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&err- 0toB occurred =hen an o..icer Bartiall- <loc?ed a Ber0on>0 car =ith the Bolice car =hile
activating the overhead light0. $. 5.S. v. 8a0?al" 7+9 (.2d *%3 I11th Cir. 19$3;" held that a &err-
0toB occurred =hen Bolice 0Bo?e to a Ber0on in an airBort and too? hi0 tic?et and a0?ed him to go to a
44 near<- o..ice =ithout returning the tic?et. 9. 5.S. v. &avolacci" $9% (.2d 1423 ID.C. Cir. 199+;"
held no &err- 0toB =here an o..icer ?noc?ed on a door to a Ber0on>0 train comBartment" a0?ed
Bermi00ion to a0? Aue0tion0 and reAue0ted and received a train tic?et and Ber0onal identi.ication" then
BromBtl- returned them. 1+. 5.S. v. &orre0':uevara" 147 (.3d 12*1 I1+th Cir. 199$; 3..icer0
encountered the de.endant at an airBort and a0?ed .or and received her identi.ication and an airline
tic?et. &he o..icer0 loo?ed at the0e item0 returned them immediatel- and told her 0he =a0 not under
arre0t and could leave. &he o..icer0 never touched or re0trained the =oman <ut a0?ed her t=ice .or
con0ent to 0earch .or drug0. 8hen the o..icer again a0?ed .or Bermi00ion to 0earch her 0he did not
re0Bond. &he o..icer a0?ed her again and 0he again did not re0Bond. &he o..icer then told her i. 0he
had drug0" 0he 0hould turn them over. ,nother o..icer" a0?ed H-ou have drug0" don>t -ouDH 8hen 0he
But her head do=n in0tead o. an0=ering" he a0?ed: Hdon>t -ouDH She re0Bonded:H-e0.H /olice detained
her and had a .emale Bolice o..icer 0earch her and .ound the drug0 &he Court
ruled that thi0 =a0 a non'0eiOure encounter 0tating that a0?ing incriminating Aue0tion0 doe0 not Ber 0e
ma?e thi0 an inve0tigative 0toB although accu0ator- and Ber0i0tent Aue0tioning" di0Bla- o. =eaBon0"
or commanding or threatening tone o. voice =ould amount to an inve0tigative detention. I3; 82,&
C3NS&1&5&ES H!E,S3N,B6E S5S/1C13NDH H!ea0ona<le 0u0BicionH i0 a term li?e HBro<a<le
cau0eH =hich evade0 Breci0e de.inition. ,lthough the rule0 .or Bolice'citiOen contact0 are <a0ed on
o<Jective 0tandard0" a deci0ion <- a court that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion e)i0t0 deBend0 on the oBinion <-
that Judge Ior in the ca0e o. an aBBellate court ' a grouB o. Judge0;. &he 0ame articula<le .actor0
=hich might <e no more than a HhunchH in one court>0 mind ma- amount to over=helming rea0ona<le
- 59 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0u0Bicion in another court>0 mind. &hi0 i0 a human .actor =e all have to live =ith. (or e)amBle" read
the Ca0e o. 5.S. v. 4endenhall" 44* 5.S. %44 I19$+;" involving an encounter <et=een Bolice and a
0u0Bected drug courier at an airBort. &hree SuBreme Court Ku0tice0 thought that the contact <et=een
the Bolice and 4endenhall =a0 a non'0eiOure contact reAuiring no Ju0ti.ication. &hree other Ku0tice0
thought it =a0 a &err- 0toB" <ut that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion e)i0ted. &hree other Ku0tice0 thought it =a0
a &err- 0toB" <ut =a0 illegal <ecau0e there =a0 not !CS. 3..icer0 0hould ?no= the vie= o. the va0t
maJorit- o. court0 a<out the .actor0 that ma- indicate !CS and .actor0 =hich have little or no 0uBBort
.or !CS or /CC. NE!#35SNESS I1; 1n 5.S. v 8ood" 1+* (.3d 942 I1+th Cir 1997; the Court ruled"
M8e have 4% reBeatedl- held that nervou0ne00 i0 o. limited 0igni.icance in determining rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion and that the government>0 reBetitive reliance on the nervou0ne00 o. either the driver or
Ba00enger a0 a <a0i0 .or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion Hin all ca0e0 o. thi0 ?ind mu0t <e treated =ith caution.N
N1t i0 common ?no=ledge that mo0t citiOen0" =hether innocent or guilt-" =hen con.ronted <- a la=
en.orcement o..icer =ho a0?0 them Botentiall- incriminating Aue0tion0 are li?el- to e)hi<it 0ome
0ign0 o. nervou0ne00.H Same ruling on nervou0ne00 in 5.S. v. /eter0" 1+ (.3d 1%17" 1%21 I1+th
Cir.1993; and 5.S. v. Bec?" 14+ (.3d 1129 I$th Cir. 199$;. See 5.S. v. 4c!ae" $1 (.3d 1%2$ I1+th
Cir. 199*; holding that nervou0ne00 along =ith other o<Jective .actor0 ma- contri<ute to !CS.
!E(5S,6 &3 C33/E!,&E I2; 1n (lorida v. Bo0tic?" 111 S.Ct. 23$2 I1991; in addition to holding
that the Bolice contact =a0 non' 0eiOure" the Court al0o 0tated that the 0u0Bect>0 re.u0al to cooBerate
=ith Bolice Ii.e.: an0=er Aue0tion0 andCor con0ent to 0earch; =ould not have given the Bolice
rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion let alone Bro<a<le cau0e to 0eiOe the 0u<Ject or 0earch hi0 luggage. Same
deci0ion <- all (ederal and State Court0: 5.S. v. (letcher" 91 (.3d 4$ I$th Cir. 199*;" 5.S. v. &orre0"
*% (.3d 1241 I4th Cir. 199%;" @arne0 v. S?rut0?i" *2 (.3d 4$% I3rd Cir. 199%; and :a0ho v. 5nited
State0" 39 (.3d 142+ I9th Cir. 1994;. &!,1NED 3BSE!#,&13NS I3; Several 5S Circuit court
- 60 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ca0e0 hold that" M=hen u0ed <- trained la= en.orcement o..icer0" o<Jective .act0" meaningle00 to the
untrained" can <e com<ined =ith Bermi00i<le deduction0 .rom 0uch .act0 to .orm a legitimate <a0i0 .or
0u0Bicion.H 5.S. v. Sholola" 124 (.3d $+3 I7th Cir. 1997; and 5.S. v. 6uJan" 1$$ (.3d %2+ I1+th Cir.
1999;. I4; 5.S. v. CorteO" 449 5.S. 1 I19$1;" dealt =ith an inve0tigation <- the Border /atrol into
0muggling alien0. 3ver 0everal month0" o..icer0 0a= 0et0 o. .ootBrint0" one o. =hich had a uniAue
Battern" coming acro00 the <order and ending uB near a high=a- =hich ran Barallel to the <order. &he
trac?0 led into o<0tacle0 =hich =ould have <een vi0i<le during the da-. &he trac?0 turned ea0t=ard at
the high=a-" then di0aBBeared a.ter a 0hort di0tance. &he o..icer0 0et uB a vantage Boint at night"
a<out 27 mile0 ea0t o. the location =here mo0t o. the .ootBrint0 di0aBBeared into the high=a-. &he-
e0timated it =ould ta?e a<out 1 [ hour0 .or a vehicle to Ba00 their location" go to the Bic?uB Boint and
return to their location. &he- 0toBBed a Bic?uB =ith a camBer 0hell =hich =ent Ba0t and then returned
in that time .rame. &he 5.S. SuBreme Court held: rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion did e)i0t on the0e .act0 to
Ju0ti.- a 0toB o. the truc?. /ro0ecutor0 0hould read and cite thi0 ca0e o.ten. 1t contain0 language telling
court0 that even HinnocentH action0 =hen vie=ed <- Bolice o..icer0 =ho have ?no=ledge o. the
mode0 or Battern0 o. certain t-Be0 o. criminal activit- can give !CS. H, trained o..icer dra=0
in.erence0 .rom data that might =ell elude an 4* untrained Ber0on.H H&he te0t .or rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion i0 not in =eighed in term0 o. li<rar- anal-0i0 <- 0cholar0.H I%; 5.S. v. 6ender" 9$% (.2d
1%1I4th Cir.1993; o..icer0 o<0erved .our or .ive men Hhuddled on a cornerH in a ?no=n drug area.
3ne o. the men Hhad hi0 hand 0tuc? out =ith hi0 Balm uB" and the other men =ere loo?ing do=n
to=ard hi0 Balm.H 8hen the grouB 0a= the Bolice " the- H<egan to di0Ber0e" and the de.endant =al?ed
a=a- .rom the o..icer0 =ith hi0 <ac? to them.H Ba0ed on the hour o. the da-" the grouB>0 di0Ber0al
uBon 0eeing the o..icer0" the ?no=n character o. the neigh<orhood" and the o..icer0> Bractical
e)Berience in recogniOing drug tran0action0" the court uBheld the 0toB. I*; 5.S. v. 4attarlo" 191 (.3d
- 61 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1+$2 I9th Cir. 1999; 6ate at night" an o..icer =a0 on a dar? 0ecluded countr- road and 0a= a Bic?uB
truc? in the drive=a- o. a .enced con0truction 0torage area" =ith the gate clo0ed. &he truc? le.t the
drive=a- =ith a three.oot 0Auare crate in the <ac?. ,t that hour there =a0 no <u0ine00 activit-. &he
o..icer 0toBBed the de.endant. &he Court held" M&he o..icer ha0 an o<Jective <a0i0 .or hi0 0u0Bicion0
<a0ed on all the circum0tance0. 1t i0 not a matter o. hard certaintie0" <ut o. Bro<a<ilitie0. &hi0 reAuire0
more than an o..icer>0 hunch" <ut a BreBonderance o. the evidence to 0ho= Broo. o. =rong doing i0
not reAuired at thi0 0tage. !CS there.ore can ari0e .rom in.ormation di..erent in Aualit- and content
and even le00 relia<le than that reAuired .or the e0ta<li0hment o. Bro<a<le cau0e. &he o..icer>0 training
and e)Berience are .actor0 to con0ider in determining i. the o..icer>0 0u0Bicion0 =ere rea0ona<le. See
0ection on Ba0i0 .or (ri0? .or other Bart o. 4attarlo ca0e I7; 5.S. v. Xuinn" $3 (.3d 917 I7th Cir.
199*; ,n o..icer 0a= three men on a 0treet corner in a high drug crime area. 5Bon 0eeing the o..icer"
one thre= a Bla0tic <ag do=n and the- 0Blit uB and <egan to =al? a=a-. 3ne man =ent one =a- and
the other t=o =ent in the oBBo0ite direction. &he o..icer ordered Xuinn to 0toB and 0a= that he =a0
carr-ing a leather Jac?et H=added uB in hi0 arm0.N 2e ordered Xuinn to accomBan- him <ac? to the
Bolice car and to Blace the Jac?et on the car. ,0 he did 0o" the o..icer heard a HthudH 0ound. 2e did a
Bat'do=n 0earch .inding no =eaBon0 then Batted the Jac?et and .elt a hard o<Ject in0ide and removed
a .22 ri.le 0a=ed'o.. and modi.ied into a handgun. 2e arre0ted Xuinn then =ent to the corner to
retrieve the 0u0Bected crac? cocaine. &he Court held the Bolice action la=.ul" Mthe de.endant>0
Bre0ence in a high crime area i0 an in0u..icient ground I<- it0el.; to 0toB or 0earch. 2o=ever" court0
ma- con0ider the de.endant>0 Bre0ence in a high crime area a0 Bart o. the totalit- o. circum0tance0
con.ronting the o..icer at the time o. the 0toB. DE(1N1N: !E,S3N,B6E S5S/1C13N I$; 5.S. v.
/errin" 4% (.3d $*9 I4th Cir. 199%; the court held Mrea0ona<le 0u0Bicion i0 a le00 demanding 0tandard
than Bro<a<le cau0e not onl- <ecau0e !CS can <e e0ta<li0hed =ith in.ormation that i0 le00 in Auantit-
- 62 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
than that reAuired to 0ho= /CC" <ut al0o .rom in.ormation that i0 le00 relia<le than needed .or /CC.N
47 I9; 5.S. v. 2en0le-" 1+% S.Ct. *7% I19$%;" i0 imBortant .or at lea0t t=o Boint0. &he 5nited State0
SuBreme Court held that the H.ello= o..icerH rule aBBlie0 to &err- 0toB0 0o that the o..icer actuall-
ma?ing the 0toB could rel- on a H=anted .or inve0tigationH .lier i00ued <- Bolice in another 0tate 0o
long a0 the i00uing Bolice had rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion. ,l0o" thi0 ca0e e)tended the authorit- to ma?e a
&err- 0toB <e-ond rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion that Hcriminal activit- =a0 a.ootH Ii.e." a Bre0entl- occurring
crime; to a 0eriou0 crime Iarmed ro<<er-; that had occurred =ee?0 earlier. I1+; 1n 3rnela0 v. 5.S."
11* S.Ct. 1*%7 I199*; Bolice in 4il=au?ee =ho =ere trained in drug interdiction 0a= a 19$1
3ld0mo<ile =ith Cali.ornia Blate0 in a motel Bar?ing lot in Decem<er. &he Bolice chec?ed the
regi0tered o=ner through di0Batch and then learned .rom the DE, that the !C3 =a0 in N,DD1S
IDE, comButer; a0 a M0u0BectedN drug tra..ic?er. /olice learned .rom the motel manager that 3rnela0
and another man chec?ed in at 4am =ithout re0ervation0. /olice al0o ?ne= that older model :4 car0
had large 0Bace0 in the door0 and other location0. &he 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid that the0e .act0
con0tituted !CS. &he Court 0aid that although the mo0aic =hich i0 anal-Oed .or !CS or /CC i0 multi
.aceted and one determination =ill 0eldom <e u0e.ul Brecedent .or another a court 0hould loo? at all
the Brecedent0 in ma?ing a deci0ion. &he court 0hould determine the Mhi0torical .act0N Iie: the 0Beci.ic
.act0 o. the ca0e; and then ma?e a legal deci0ion a0 to =hether the .act0 0ati0.- the con0titutional
0tandard. I11; 1n State v. Sonne.eld" 114 Nev. *31 I199$; the Court ruled that a deBut- 0heri.. had
rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion 0u..icient to ma?e inve0tigator- 0toB o. vehicle <a0ed on hi0 corro<oration o.
<artender>0 detailed tiB to di0Batcher that ine<riated cu0tomer had le.t <ar and =a0 driving under
in.luence9 <artender Brovided color o. car" de0criBtion o. di0tingui0hing roo. rac?" licen0e Blate
num<er" Bh-0ical de0criBtion o. driver and direction in =hich vehicle =a0 heading" all o. =hich =ere
con.irmed <- the o..icer there<- e0ta<li0hing !CS. I12; 3ther Nevada ca0e0 are
- 63 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8right v. State" $$ Nev. 4*+ I1972;" Kac?0on v. State" 9+ Nev. 2** I1974;" Nel0on v. State" 9* Nev.
3*3 I19$+;" and 1del.on0o v. State" $$ Nev. 3+7 I1972;. ,ll o. the0e reAuired ver- little in term0 o.
Marticula<le .act0N to 0ho= !CS. ,N3N7435S ,ND 3&2E! &1/S I13; ,la<ama v. 8hite" 11+
S.Ct. 2412 I199+;" held that an anon-mou0 tiB that a .emale =ould leave a Barticular aBartment
comBle) at a Barticular time" =ould drive a certain de0cri<ed car" =ould go to a certain de0tination
and =ould <e carr-ing drug0 =a0 enough .or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion =hen Bolice corro<orated the
detail0 o. the tiB and 0toBBed the car a0 it neared the de0tination. 1t made no di..erence that all the
action0 o<0erved <- the Bolice =ere Hinnocent.H 40. 8hite>0 0u<0eAuent con0ent to 0earch" =hich
turned uB the doBe" =a0 not the .ruit o. an unla=.ul &err- 0toB. I14; 1n 5.S. v. /rice" 1$4 (.3d *37
I7th Cir. 1999;" the /olice received an 4$ anon-mou0 tiB 0tating that a =hite 4ercur- Cougar" =ith a
licen0e Blate containing the letter0 H(6K"H =ould <e delivering one ?ilogram o. cocaine to a 0Beci.ic
re0idence in 4il=au?ee. &he tiB0ter told the Bolice that the car had le.t She<o-gan at a<out 9:++ B.m.
I ,<out *+ mile0 .rom 4il=au?ee.; and al0o 0tated that the car =ould contain t=o <lac? =omen"
Charlene and /atricia " and one <lac? man named Calvin Ial0o gave la0t name0; /olice arrived at the
vicinit- o. the 0u0Bect re0idence in an unmar?ed car at around 1+:4% B.m.. &he o..icer0 did not veri.-
=ho lived at the re0idence" and did not Ber.orm record chec?0 o. three BeoBle named <- the tiB0ter.
,t aBBro)imatel- 11:2+ B.m." a =hite 4ercur- Cougar arrived containing t=o <lac? =omen and t=o
<lac? men. &he driver dou<le'Bar?ed the car and le.t the engine running. &he licen0e Blate contained
the letter0 H:K6.H ,ll .our occuBant0 got out and aBBroached the re0idence. /olice 0toBBed them at
the 0ide=al? and indicated that the- =ere inve0tigating a narcotic0 comBlaint. Several o. the
occuBant0 Broduced 1D con.irming the name0 given <- the in.ormant. 6ater" narcotic0 =ere .ound.
&he Court held that the 0toB =a0 <a0ed on !CS.I ,la<ama v. 8hite.;. I1%; 1n 5.S. v. Bell" 1$3 (.3d
$4* I$th Cir. 1999; /olice acted on a tiB .rom 40. 2arri0" =ho Brovided detailed in.ormation that
- 64 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
criminal activit- =a0 a.oot. M2arri0 =a0 a clo0e acAuaintance o. Bell =ho had Breviou0l- Brovided
accurate in.ormation a<out him. 2arri0>0 tiB''that Bell and 1ngram =ere driving to 6ittle !oc? to Bic?
uB crac? cocaine .rom 6inda Bee''=a0 con0i0tent =ith in.ormation received .rom other 0ource0 le00
than a month earlier and =ith more recent in.ormation that Bell and 1ngram =ere 0elling drug0 at
2314 Kean Street. &he tiB =a0 .urther corro<orated =hen the o..icer0 0a= a car matching the
de0criBtion 2arri0 had Brovided traveling on 5.S. 2igh=a- *% in the direction o. /ine Blu... M
Con0idering the totalit- o. the circum0tance0" =e agree =ith the di0trict court that the 0toB did not
violate Bell>0 (ourth ,mendment right0.N 1ND1#1D5,6 S5S/1C13N I1*; 7<arra v. 1llinoi0" 1++
S.Ct. 33$ I1979;" =a0 a ca0e =here Bolice had a 0earch =arrant .or a tavern and the <artender" <a0ed
on Bro<a<le cau0e" that he =a0 0elling drug0 at the <ar. /olice entered the tavern during <u0ine00
hour0 to 0erve the 0earch =arrant" and Batted do=n the Batron0. 3ne o. the Batron0 =a0 7<arra =ho
had doBe in hi0 Boc?et =hich =a0 0eiOed. &he 5nited State0 SuBreme Court held: illegal 0earch ' no
rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion that 7<arra =a0 engaged in criminal activit- andCor that he might have a
=eaBon" Ju0t <ecau0e he =a0 in the <ar. !ea0ona<le 0u0Bicion and Bro<a<le cau0e mu0t <e
individualiOed. I17; , recent ca0e demon0trate0 the rule that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion mu0t <e
individualiOed. &he di..erence =a0 =hether the !CS did or did not cover more than one Ber0on. 1n
5.S. v. Kohn0on" 17+ (.3d 7+$ I7th Cir. 1999; Bolice =ere aBBroaching a re0idence .or a M?noc? and
tal?.N ,0 the- arrived" a Ber0on e)ited the re0idence and =a0 &err- 0toB detained <- Bolice. &he
detention and Bat do=n =ere held to <e unla=.ul <ecau0e there =a0 no individualiOed 0u0Bicion a0 to
that Ber0on. 49 !E,S3N,B6E 41S&,@E 3( (,C&S &=o ca0e0 0ho= that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion
can <e .ound in a ca0e =here the Bolice =ere mi0ta?en a<out the .act0 Ju0ti.-ing the detention" <ut the
.act0 <elieved <- the Bolice =ere .ound to <e rea0ona<le Iie: the Bolice had no rea0on to <elieve that
the .act0 =ere incorrect =hen the 0toB =a0 made. I1$; 1n the ca0e o. Stuart v. State" 94 Nev. 721
- 65 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I197$;" the o..icer noticed that the trun? loc? on the vehicle =a0 mi00ing. ,.ter the 0toB =a0 e..ected"
the o..icer detected the odor o. mariJuana and noticed =hat aBBeared to <e mariJuana 0eed0 on the
.loor in the .ront 0eat o. the vehicle. &he court 0aid H&he o..icer" in thi0 ca0e" had o<0erved the
mi00ing trun? loc?" and" <a0ed uBon training he had received at the 2igh=a- /atrol ,cadem-"
in.erred that the vehicle might <e 0tolen. 5nder the0e circum0tance0" =e <elieve the o..icer>0
conclu0ion =a0 rea0ona<le and he =a0 Ju0ti.ied in 0toBBing the vehicle .or routine Aue0tioning and
inve0tigation.H Since the o..icer had la=.ull- attained the Bo0ition .rom =hich he o<0erved the
mariJuana in oBen vie=" and it =a0 in a vehicle =hich could <e 0earched =ithout a =arrant he had a
right to 0eiOe it and the mariJuana =a0 BroBerl- admitted into evidence. N3&E: &he vehicle =a0 not
actuall- 0tolen. I19; 5.S. v. ,lvareO" $99 (.2d $33 I9th Cir. 199+;" an unidenti.ied caller told Bolice
that tall 2i0Banic male =ould ro< certain <an? =ithin 1+ minute0 and had e)Blo0ive0 in trun? o. =hite
4u0tang. /olice 0a= =hite 4u0tang <ac?ed into Bar?ing 0Bace .acing <an? =ith 2i0Banic driver. Car
Bulled out =hen Bolice arrived. /olice 0toBBed car and Batted do=n driver. (ound gun then 0earched
car and .ound gun0 and drug0 in trun?. Be.ore trial" caller =a0 identi.ied and it =a0 0ho=n that hi0
Hro<<er- BlanH claim =a0 .al0e. 2eld: Bolice action 3@. Even anon-mou0 tiB can Brovide /CC or !CS
.or &err- 0toB =here Bolice can corro<orate all detail0 o. tiB. (act that all o. 0u0Bect>0 action0 =ere
HinnocentH ma?e0 no di..erence. /olice didn>t ?no= tiB =a0 .al0e'Bolice had o<Jectivel- rea0ona<le
articula<le <a0i0 .or 0toB. I2+; But ' -ou mu0t <e care.ul a<out a 0toB <a0ed on =rong in.ormation. 1.
the o..icer>0 Ior Bolice deBartmentP0; negligence cau0e0 or Broduce0 the incorrect in.ormation =hich"
on the 0ur.ace" Ju0ti.ie0 the 0toB ' later on the court =ill Bro<a<l- 0a- 0toB i0 no good. (or e)amBle:
0toB no good =here Bolice o..ice called in =rong licen0e num<er" or el0e di0Batcher heard it =rong
and told o..icer Blate0 didn>t match. 6ater determined that Blate0 did match. Evidence .rom the 0toB
=a0 tainted. 5nited State0 v. De6eon'!e-na" $9$ (.2d 4$* I%th Cir. 199+; ' 0ame re0ult in 3tt v.
- 66 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
State" *++ ,.2d 111 I4d. 1992;. INote: thi0 i0 0till true even a.ter the deci0ion in ,riOona v" Evan0
I0ee 0ection on MBolice mi0ta?e0; <ecau0e there the error =a0 done <- the court cler?P0 o..ice not <-
the Bolice deBartment;. 5N/!3#3@ED (61:2& (!34 /361CE I21; 1n 1llinoi0 v. 8ordla=
Idecided Kanuar- 2+++; the maJorit- o. the 5.S. %+ SuBreme Court held that" although a Ber0on
0tanding in an area ?no=n .or heav- narcotic0 tra..ic?ing" <- that .act alone i0 not 0u<Ject to a &err-
0toB. 1. the Ber0on .lea0 .rom the Bolice Bre0ence =ithout Brovocation" that Ber0on can <e &err-
0toBBed. /olice did 0o9 did a Bat'do=n <ecau0e" in the o..icerP0 e)Berience it =a0 common .or
=eaBon0 to <e around drug tran0action0" and .ound a =eaBon on 8ordla=" =hich =a0 held
admi00i<le. &=o .ollo=ing ca0e0 hold that although unBrovo?ed .light .rom Bolice alone i0 not
enough .or !CS" that the .light along =ith other .actor0" can 0uBBort !CSC I22; State v. Stinnett" 1+4
Nev. 39$ I19$$;" Bolice =ere on Batrol in area =ith high incidence o. drug crime0 and 0a= 0everal
men huddled in .ront o. a<andoned re0idence. 3ne o. the grouB noticed the Bolice" he ran to=ard the
<ac? o. the re0idence cha0ed <- the Bolice. , .e= minute0 later" Bolice entered the a<andoned home
and .ound 0u0Bect huddled in a clo0et =ith drug0 near<-. 2eld: &he 0u0Bect =a0 not detained =hen he
ran .rom the Bolice. 8hen the 0u0Bect =a0 .ound in0ide the a<andoned hou0e" he =a0 detained" <ut all
the circum0tance0 including hi0 unBrovo?ed .light Ju0ti.ied an inve0tigative detention. I23; 1n 5.S. v.
Kac?0on" 17% (.3d *++ I$th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled that 1t =a0 rea0ona<le .or o..icer to tac?le
de.endant to e..ect inve0tigative 0toB =hen o..icer0 =ere re0Bonding to call that 0hot0 had <een .ired
at addre00 in high'crime neigh<orhood" de.endant =a0 <ehind area =here 0hot0 =ere .ired and
nervou0l- <egan to .lee =hen o..icer0 aBBroached in mar?ed 0Auad car" o..icer0 noticed that
de.endant aBBeared to <e clutching 0omething at hi0 0ide a0 he ran" and continued to .lee a.ter o..icer0
announced that the- =ere o..icer0 and told de.endant to 0toB. I4; M/!3(161N:N Xuite a <it o.
con.u0ion e)i0t0 in Bolice circle0 concerning MBro.ilingN <ut modern ca0e0 ma?e the correct legal
- 67 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
con0eAuence0 Auite clear. 1n a nut0hell" =hen o..icer0 ma?e a 0toB <a0ed on Bro.iling" the .act that
Bro.iling =a0 u0ed ha0 no legal 0igni.icance at all. 1t doe0nPt helB or hurt the validit- o. the 0toB. &hi0
=a0 the holding o. the 5. S. SuBreme Court in So?olo=. 1. 1n 5nited State0 v. So?olo=" 1+9 S.Ct.
1%$1 I19$9;" DE, agent0 0toBBed the 0u0Bect at 2onolulu ,irBort <ecau0e I1; he had Baid L2"1++
ca0h .or airline tic?et0" I2; he traveled under a name that did not match the name under =hich the
Bhone num<er he u0ed =a0 li0ted" I3; hi0 de0tination had <een 4iami =hich =a0 a H0ource cit-H" I4;
he 0ta-ed in 4iami onl- 4$ hour0" I%; he aBBeared nervou0 and I*; he had no chec?ed luggage. DE,
.ound 1 ?ilo o. cocaine in hi0 carr-'on luggage a.ter a trained drug 0ni..ing dog alerted on the
luggage and DE, o<tained a 0earch =arrant. 2eld: !ea0ona<le 0u0Bicion .or a &err-
0toB e)i0ted. ,lthough each .actor ta?en alone =a0 in0u..icient to Ju0ti.- a 0toB" =hen ta?en together
the- amount to rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion. &he HBro.ileH .actor0 0ho=n here are HBro<ativeH and amount to
rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion even though none o. them are HcriminalH. &he .act that the Ber0on .it a HBro.ileH
did not in and o. it0el. eAual rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion. %1 2. 1n @arne0 v. S?rut0?i" *2 (.3d 4$% I3rd Cir.
199%; the Court ruled that Hthe drug courier Bro.ile ha0 little meaning indeBendent o. the o<Jective
.act0H Bre0ented <- the la= en.orcement o..icer a0 0u..icient to demon0trate rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion. 1n
other =ord0" the .actor0 that the la= en.orcement o..icer u0e0 to e0ta<li0h /CC or !CS mu0t <e
articulated Iie: 0Beci.ied; <a0ed on the circum0tance0 o. each ca0e. &he Bro.ile it0el. doe0 not Brovide
an- additional 0uBBort .or .inding /CC or !CS. Same ruling in 5.S. v. 4alone" $$* (.2d 11*2 I9th Cir.
19$9;" 5.S. v. 4oore" 22 (.3d 241 I1+th Cir. 1994; and 5.S. v. L%3"+$2 in 5S Currenc-" 9$% (.2d
2$% I*th Cir. 1993; a0 =ell a0 numerou0 0tate 0uBreme court ca0e0. 3. See the 0ection on M/rete)t
StoB0N in thi0 manual. &he modern la= <a0ed on the 8hren ca0e .rom the 5.S. SuBreme Court and
:ama ca0e .rom the Nevada SuBreme Court ma?e it clear that a0 long a0 an o..icer ha0 an- o<Jective
<a0i0 .or ma?ing a 0toB" the o..icerP0 internal motive0 are irrelevant. &hi0 mean0 that an o..icer can
- 68 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ma?e a 0toB <a0ed on a MBro.ileN <ut onl- 0o long a0 there i0 0ome other <a0i0 .or the 0toB. &here i0 no
longer an- 0uch thing a0 an illegal Brete)t 0toB. 4. 50e o. indicator0 0uch a0 mem<er0hiB in certain
racial grouB0 in drug courier Bro.iling ha0 <een 0harBl- challenged. MDe.endantP0 nationalit-
I4e)ican; and hi0 .riend0P u0e o. SBani0h cannot 0uBBort rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion o. 0muggling drug0N
according to 5nited State0 v. :arcia" 23 (.3d 1331 I$th Cir. 1994;. I%; 82,& (3!4S &2E B,S1S
&3 (!1S@ D &he right to .ri0? i0 not generall- automatic =ith a valid M0toB.N 1. 1n Si<ron v. Ne=
7or?" 392 5.S. 4+ I19*$; and 7<arra v. 1llinoi0" 444 5.S. $% I1979; the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid that
the general rule i0 that a M.ri0?N i0 not al=a-0 Ju0ti.ied <ecau0e the M0toBN i0 Ju0ti.ied. &he o..icer ha0
to <e a<le to Boint to Barticular .act0 that made him thin? the 0u0Bect Mma- <eN armed. 2. 1n
4inne0ota v. Dic?er0on" 113 S.Ct. 213+ I1993;" the HBlain .eelH ca0e" Ku0tice Scalia>0 concurring
oBinion ma?e0 it clear that the right to H.ri0?H doe0 not automaticall- accomBan- the right to H0toB.H
I&hi0 i0 the oBBo0ite o. H0earch incident to arre0tH rule =hich doe0 automaticall- accomBan- an-
la=.ul cu0todial arre0t.;. 3. ,dam0 v. 8illiam0" 4+7 5.S. 143 I1972;" held that =here a relia<le
in.ormant told an o..icer that a Ber0on 0itting in a Bar?ed car had a concealed =eaBon. &he o..icer
a0?ed the Ber0on to 0teB .rom the car" <ut in0tead ,dam0 rolled do=n the =indo=. &he o..icer
reached in the =indo= to hi0 =ai0t<and and .elt" then 0eiOed" a gun. &hi0 =a0 enough rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion .or a 0toB and .ri0?. 4. 1n 5.S. v. 4attarolo" 191 (.3d 1+$2 I9th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled
that an o..icer ma- conduct a limited Brotective 0earch .or concealed =eaBon0 i. there i0 a rea0on to
<elieve the 0u0Bect ma- have a =eaBon. &he o..icer mu0t choo0e <et=een <eing 0ure that the 0u0Bect
i0 not armed and JeoBardiOing hi0 o=n 0a.et-. ,n o..icer ma?ing a 0toB %2 under the 0u0Biciou0
circum0tance0 o. the Bre0ent ca0e =ho .ailed to Batdo=n the 0u0Bect .or =eaBon0 =ithin the limited
0coBe o. &err- could <e ta?ing 0u<0tantial and unnece00ar- ri0?0.N Di0tingui0hing an earlier ca0e" the
Court that the 0toB in that ca0e =a0 in a <an? Bar?ing lot during the da-light hour0" not on a remote
- 69 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0ection o. road at midnight. &he Ber0on 0toBBed =a0 a 0u0Bected counter.eiter" not a 0u0Bect caught
Bo00i<l- in the act o. committing a nighttime <urglar- and there.ore more li?el- to <e armed. 1n
4attarolo" the de.endant got out o. hi0 car 0=i.tl- and =al?ed Auic?l- to=ard the 0Auad car <e.ore
the o..icer had the chance to get out o. hi0 car. &hi0 cau0ed the o..icer to get out o. hi0 0Auad car
Auic?l- 0o a0 not to <e traBBed =ith the mean0 o. Brotecting him0el. con0eAuentl- limited. :iven the
totalit- o. the circum0tance0" the Batdo=n 0earch =a0 .ull- Ju0ti.ied and a Brovident Brocedure to
.ollo=. %. 1n 5. S. v. Sinclair" 9$3 (.2d %9$ I4th Cir. 1993; the Court held that Mthe o..icerP0
rea0ona<le <elie. ma- derive a0 much .rom hi0 e)Berience0 in 0imilar ca0e0 a0 .rom hi0 ?no=ledge o.
the dangerou0 BroBen0itie0 o. the 0u0Bect at hand.N *. 1n 5. S. v. :i<0on" *4 (.3d *17 I11th Cir. 199%;
the Court 0aid that =here the o..icer had corro<orated ever- item o. in.ormation .rom an anon-mou0
tiB0ter a<out a certain 0u0Bect" the o..icer had rea0on to <elieve the tiB0terP0 0tatement that the 0u0Bect
=a0 armed. 7. 1n 5.S. v. &a-lor" 1*2 (.3d 12 I10t Cir. 199$; the Court ruled that 1n.ormant>0 tiB that
occuBant0 o. automo<ile =ere in Bo00e00ion o. crac? cocaine and =eaBon0 and =ere delivering
narcotic0 e)hi<ited 0u..icient indicia o. relia<ilit- to Ju0ti.- inve0tigator- 0toB o. automo<ile and .ri0?
o. the occuBant09 in.ormant had Brovided relia<le in.ormation in the Ba0t" tiB included 0uch detail0 a0
ma?e and color o. car and de0criBtion o. it0 occuBant0" and tiB =a0 corro<orated in 0igni.icant a0Bect0
<- the o..icer. $. 1n 5.S. v. CamB<ell" 17$ (.3d 34% I%th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled it =a0 not
unrea0ona<le .or Bolice o..icer to dra= hi0 =eaBon" order armed <an? ro<<er- 0u0Bect to lie on
ground" handcu.. 0u0Bect =ith hi0 hand0 <ehind hi0 <ac?" and .ri0? 0u0Bect during cour0e o.
inve0tigator- 0toB" even though 0u0Bect comBlied =ith o..icer>0 order0 and ro<<er- had occurred
aBBro)imatel- 3+ hour0 Brior to 0toB9 0u0Bect matched de0criBtion o. armed <an? ro<<er and he =a0
getting into driver>0 0ide o. automo<ile matching de0criBtion o. geta=a- car" there =ere other BeoBle
in area during 0toB" and there =ere onl- three o..icer0 to control three 0u0Bect0. !E4E4BE! ' ,
- 70 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(!1S@ C,N 3N67 BE D3NE (3! 8E,/3NS" N3& (3! ,N7 3&2E! 1&E4S 3!
C3N&!,B,ND. 238E#E!" 1( &2E (!1S@ 1S D3NE 81&2 !CS &2,& , 8E,/3N 1S
/!ESEN&" B5& ,(&E! !E43#1N: &2E 1&E4 &2,& M(E6& 61@EN , 8E,/3N" &2E
/361CE (1ND &2,& 1& 8,S N3& ,C&5,667 , 8E,/3N" &2E SE,!C2 G SE1Z5!E 1S
S&166 #,61D 9. 5.S. v. !a-mond" 1%2 (.3d 3+9 I4th Cir. 199$; /olice 0toBBed a car .or 0Beeding.
!a-mond =a0 a Ba00enger and the Bolice ordered him out o. the car. 2e got out clutching hi0
0tomach. &he o..icer Batted him do=n and .elt a large di0c li?e o<Ject =hich he thought might <e a
=eaBon. 1t turned out to <e a 7H roc? cocaine di0?. &he %3 court ruled that the circum0tance0 gave ri0e
to an articula<le 0u0Bicion that he might have <een armed =ith a =eaBon. &here =a0 a rea0ona<le
<a0i0 .or conducting a Batdo=n 0earch <a0ed on hi0 0trange e)it .rom the car" a0 i. he =ere attemBting
to conceal 0omething under hi0 Jac?et" and the a=?=ard =a- in =hich he leaned again0t the car =hile
tal?ing to Bolice. 1+. 5.S. v. !ahman" 1$9 (.3d $$ I2d Cir. 1999; the Court held that 0eiOure o.
.orged Ba00Bort0 <- agent0 =a0 rea0ona<le" =here agent0 learned that vehicle u0ed in <om<ing o.
o..ice <uilding in Ne= 7or? Cit- had <een rented <- Ber0on li0ting hi0 addre00 a0 0u0Bect>0 addre00"
agent0 o<tained =arrant to 0earch 0uch addre00" agent0 o<0erved 0u0Bect returning to the <uilding at
accelerated Bace =hen the- entered to 0earch" 0u0Bect re0i0ted <eing .ri0?ed" and agent0 .elt .irm
rectangular o<Ject in hi0 Boc?et that the- could have rea0ona<l- e)Bected =a0 an e)Blo0ive device"
<ut turned out to <e enveloBe containing Ba00Bort0. 11. 5.S. v. Ed=ard0" %3 (.3d *1* I3rd Cir. 199%;
the Court ruled Bolice =ere Ju0ti.ied in conducting &err- Brotective Batdo=n .or =eaBon0 and
oBening enveloBe .ound in Boc?et o. Jac?et on de.endant>0 laB. /olice re0Bonded to reBort o. credit
card .raud in Brogre00" and =ere Ju0ti.ia<l- concerned that 0mall'cali<er handgun could <e concealed
in enveloBe" =hich mea0ured .our <- 0i) inche0 and .elt .rom out0ide a0 i. it held hard" <ul?- o<Ject.
I.ound 0tolen credit card0'3@;. 12. 5.S. v. Strahan" 9$4 (.2d 1%% I*th Cir. 1993; the Court
- 71 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recogniOed the rule that =here an o..icer i0 doing a la=.ul M.ri0?N and .eel0 an o<Ject that rea0ona<l-
aBBear0 to <e 0ome 0ort o. =eaBon" the o..icer can remove that item" and i. it turn0 out that it =a0 not
actuall- a =eaBon" <ut i0 contra<and" the 0eiOure o. the contra<and i0 la=.ul. IBulge and hard item
turned out to <e mone- cliB; 13. 1n 5.S. v. Bro=n" 1$$ (.3d $*+ I7th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled that
3..icer had articula<le ground0 .or !CS that Ber0on in a tra..ic 0toB might <e armed and dangerou0" to
Ju0ti.- an initial Bat'do=n 0earch9 circum0tance0 included o..icer>0 ?no=ledge o. (B1 0urveillance o.
the vehicle a0 a Bo00i<le Bart o. a large'0cale drug oBeration" the 0mell o. mariJuana 0mo?e .rom the
car" driverP0 ver- nervou0 demeanor" hi0 .ailure to ma?e e-e contact" hi0 glancing <ac? to the vehicle"
=here the other occuBant0 rolled do=n the tinted =indo=0 during the tra..ic 0toB" and the .act that the
0toB occurred in a high crime area =here there =a0 gang and drug activit- and had <een recent
0hooting0. Nervou0ne00" re.u0al to ma?e e-e contact or high crime area alone =ill not Ju0ti.- a &err-
0toB and Bat'do=n" <ut 0uch <ehavior ma- <e con0idered a0 a .actor in the totalit- o. circum0tance0.
&he Court Ju0ti.ied a Bat'do=n 0earch .ollo=ing tra..ic 0toB =hich di0clo0ed a hard o<Ject a<out the
0iOe o. a Bing'Bong <all in 0u0Bect>0 groin area. M 1t =a0 rea0ona<le .or o..icer to thin? o<Ject =a0 the
<utt o. a gun" even i. o..icer =ould have <een more rea0ona<le to thin? the o<Ject =a0 drug0.N 14.
5.S. v. CamB<ell" 17$ (.3d 34% I%th Cir. 1999; Court held removal" during %4 cour0e o. inve0tigator-
0toB" o. content0 o. 0u0Bected armed <an? ro<<er>0 Boc?et =a0 rea0ona<le and =ithin 0coBe o.
Bermi00i<le &err- .ri0?" =here Bolice o..icer had not ruled
out Bo00i<ilit- that large <ulge" .ormed <- over L1"4++ in currenc- and card<oard <o) containing
gold chain" =a0 a =eaBon. Note: 3..icer0 0hould <e a=are that an item encountered and la=.ull-
removed during a M.ri0?N doe0 not generall- give the right to oBen the item unle00 it might rea0ona<l-
contain a =eaBon. 3ther=i0e" i. it i0 oBened" evidence =ill <e 0uBBre00ed unle00 there =a0
Ju0ti.ication. I!emem<er: !CS i0 enough to get =eaBon0 <ut /CC U con0ent or a SC8 i0 needed to get
- 72 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contra<and or evidence. Be=are o. a Brete)t arre0t to get authorit- to 0earch; M&he need to di0cover
=eaBon0 cannot Ju0ti.- oBening the match<o)N/ace v. Beto" 4*9 (.2d 13$9 I%th Cir. 1972" 0ame
ruling regarding 0mall Bouch /eoBle v. 4artineO" $+1 /.2d %42 IColo. 199+; and cigarette ca0e in
C.2. v. State" %4$ So.2d $9% I(lorida" 19$9; /lea0e re.er to the M/lain #ie=N 0ection in thi0 manual
under 0u<Ject o. M1mmediatel- aBBarent"N .or di0cu00ion on M0ingle BurBo0eN container0. &he
theoretical di0tinction <et=een H0toB0H and H.ri0?0H Ithat each reAuire0 it0 0eBarate Ju0ti.ication; i0
0ometime0 <lurred" although the courtP0 deci0ion i0 correct" .or e)amBle: 1%. 1n !u0ling v. State" 9*
Nev. 77$ I19$+;" a Bolice o..icer 0a= a Ber0on =ith a car Bar?ed in the road" trun? and door oBen"
=al? acro00 the 0treet to a truc? =here a ru<<er ho0e led .rom the ga0 tan? to a ga0 can. &he 0u0Bect
.led and the o..icer <roadca0t a de0criBtion. ,nother o..icer 0toBBed the 0u0Bect I<a0ed on matching
de0criBtion and location; a<out one hour later. &he 0u0Bect =a0 Batted do=n and a gun =a0 .ound.
De.endant =a0 charged =ith Bo00e00ion o. a .irearm <- e)'.elon. 3n the Bat do=n i00ue" the court
0aid: H&he o..icer need not <e a<0olutel- certain that the individual i0 armed I&err-;. &he o..icer had
rea0ona<le ground0 to anticiBate danger to him0el. or the other o..icer. &he 0u0Bect met the
de0criBtion o. one =ho =a0 Bo00i<l- engaged in auto the.t. &he 0u0Bect .led and =a0 hiding. &he 0toB
occurred late at night. ,ll the0e .actor0 led the o..icer to conclude rea0ona<l- that the 0u0Bect =a0
involved in criminal conduct. &here.ore" it =a0 not imBroBer .or him to in.er the Bo00i<ilit- o. a
concealed =eaBon.H Certain &-Be0 o. Crime Do Ku0ti.- an MautomaticN (ri0? 4an-" <ut not all" court0
hold that certain t-Be0 o. criminal activit- are commonl- a00ociated =ith =eaBon0" there<- Ju0ti.-ing
a .ri0? .or =eaBon0 i. there i0 rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion o. that t-Be o. criminal activit-. (or e)amBle"
Mhigh levelN drug dealing ha0 <een vie=ed thi0 =a- in the .ollo=ing ca0e0: 5.S. v. Bro=n" 9+3 (.2d
%4+ I$th Cir. 199+;" /eoBle v. 6ee" 24+ Cal. !Btr. 32 I19$7;" 5.S. v. /ea-" $$% (.SuBB. 1 IDC D.C.
199%;" 5. S. v. 4c4urra-" 34 (.3d 14+% %% I$th Cir.1994; and 5.S. v. Sala0" $79 (.2d %3+ I9th Cir.
- 73 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19$9; 5.S. v. /rice" 1$4 (.3d *37 I7th Cir.1999;. #iolent dome0tic di0Bute0 can Auali.-" /eoBle v.
Bar<er" %37 N.E.2d 1171 I1ll. 19$9;" State v. #a0AueO" $+7 /.2d %2+ I,riO. 1991;. ,rmed ro<<er-:
5.S. v. ,<o?hi" $29 (.2d *** I$th Cir.19$7; and 5.S. v. 6ang" $1 (.3d 14+% I$th Cir. 1994;.
Burglar-: 5.S. v. 8al?er" 924 (.2d 1 I10t Cir. 1991;" 5.S. v. 4oore" $17 (.2d 11+% I4th Cir. 19$7;.
I*; M/6,1N (EE6N 4inne0ota v. Dic?er0on" 113 S.Ct. 213+ I1993;" i0 the 0o'called HBlain .eelH ca0e.
5ni.ormed Bolice =ere on Batrol at night near an aBartment <uilding ?no=n to them a0 a hot<ed o.
drug dealing0. /olice had 0erved 0everal drug 0earch =arrant0 at that <uilding and had citiOen
comBlaint0 o. drug0 <eing 0old in the hall=a-0. Dic?er0on =a0 o<0erved leaving the <uilding and
=al?ed to=ard the mar?ed Bolice car. 5Bon 0eeing the Bolice" he turned and a<ruBtl- =al?ed the
other =a- and entered an alle-. &he o..icer0 made a H&err- 0toBH on Dic?er0on and al0o H.ri0?edH
him. 8hile H.ri0?ingH Dic?er0on" one o..icer .elt 0omething in hi0 Boc?et =hich the o..icer 0lid
around and maniBulated" then removed a Bla0tic <ag containing 1C% gram o. roc? cocaine. I&he
legalit- o. the H0toBH and the deci0ion to H.ri0?H =ere not an i00ue <e.ore the 5nited State0 SuBreme
Court. 1t =a0 a00umed" <ut not directl- held <- the Court" that the- =ere valid.; &he i00ue i0 =hether
and =hen HBlain .eelH =ould allo= o..icer0 to legall- 0eiOe item0 other than 0u0Bected =eaBon0. &he
Court held a0 .ollo=0: a00uming that there i0 a legal 0toB and a legal .ri0?" and during the .ri0? the
o..icer .eel0 an item that i0 not a 0u0Bected =eaBon" then i. it i0 immediatel- aBBarent .rom the ma00
and contour that the item i0 Bro<a<l- contra<and" the o..icer can legall- 0eiOe it I=ithout having to
arre0t the Ber0on and rel- on 0earch incident to arre0t;. 1n Dic?er0on" the Court ruled that the roc?
cocaine =ould have to <e 0uBBre00ed" <ecau0e the o..icer continued .eeling and .ri0?ing a.ter the
o..icer alread- concluded no =eaBon =a0 in the Boc?et ' i.e." Blain .eel mean0 immediatel- aBBarent.
1n 5.S. v. /roctor" 14$ (.3d 39 I10t Cir. 199$; Bolice had la=.ull- entered a Bremi0e0 and 0eiOed a
large Bac?age o. mariJuana. ,<out 1% minute0 later. &=o Ber0on0 ?noc?ed on the door and =ere
- 74 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
admitted entr-. &he o..icer Batted them do=n and .elt =hat he thought =a0 a Bla0tic <ag containing
mariJuana. &he Court uBheld the .ri0? and al0o the 0eiOing o. the mariJuana <a0ed on the o..icerP0
e)Berience and the .act that the Ber0on0 entered a drug hou0e Ju0t a.ter the drug0 arrived. 1n State v.
Conner0" 11* Nev. FFFF" 994 /2d 44 I(e< 4" 2+++; an o..icer la=.ull- 0toBBed and .ri0?ed Satan
!enee Conner0. ,.ter ruling out a =eaBon the o..icer changed hi0 griB on a Boc?et to determine =hat
an o<Ject =a0 and removed a 0mall vial o. methamBhetamine. &he item =a0 0uBBre00ed <a0ed uBon
the Dic?er0on ruling. 8e0tla= comButer re0earch di0clo0e0 that man- .ederal court0 have .ollo=ed
the %* rule e0ta<li0hed <- 4inne0ota v. Dic?er0on and that more than 9+Y o. State SuBreme Court0
=hich have dealt =ith the i00ue have adoBted the 0ame rule. I7; 82,& 6141&S EZ1S& 3N &2E
SC3/E ,ND 1N&ENS1&7 3( &2E S&3/D &he :eneral !ule 1n 5.S. v. SharBe" 1+% S.Ct. 1%*$
I19$%;" a DE, agent develoBed rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion that one o. t=o vehicle0 traveling in tandem on
a high=a- =a0 0muggling drug0. &he agent got helB .rom a 0tate trooBer and a Ba00enger car =a0
Bulled over. &he Bic?uB truc? 0u0Bected to contain the drug0 could not <e Bulled over .or 0everal
mile0. &he Bolice unit0 lo0t radio contact and the Bic?uB truc? and it0 driver =ere detained a<out 1%
minute0 <e.ore an agent arrived" 0melled mariJuana and develoBed Bro<a<le cau0e. &he criminal
claimed that thi0 time dela- converted the H0toBH into an Harre0tH and 0ince there =a0 onl- rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion and not Bro<a<le cau0e" he claimed there =a0 an unla=.ul arre0t. &he Court held: no arre0t
until a.ter the 0ni.. o. mariJuana ' 0coBe o. &err- 0toB =a0 3@. &he Court 0aid a &err- 0toB =a0 a
temBorar- detention Ia0 oBBo0ed to an arre0t; and that the 0coBe =a0 la=.ul a0 long a0 the Bolice
diligentl- Bur0ued a mean0 o. inve0tigation that =a0 li?el- to con.irm or di0Bel their 0u0Bicion0
Auic?l-. N3&E: 1n So?olo=" the 5nited State0 SuBreme Court held that the inve0tigative mean0 u0ed
<- Bolice to con.irm or di0Bel 0u0Bicion do not have to <e the lea0t intru0ive mean0 Bo00i<le ' onl-
that the- <e Hrea0ona<leH mean0. 5.S. v. 3=en0" 1*7 (.3d 739 I10t Cir 1999;%+ minute detention o.
- 75 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
driver and Ba00enger a.ter 0toB o. automo<ile .or 0Beeding =a0 not 0o long a0 to convert inve0tigative
0toB into de .acto arre0t. 6ength o. detention =a0 rea0ona<le under the circum0tance0: driver did not
have valid driver>0 licen0e" need to determine =hether Ba00enger had authorit- to drive the
automo<ile" and o..icer0> diligent Bur0uit o. mean0 o. inve0tigation that =ould di0Bel their 0u0Bicion0.
M&he Bermi00i<le 0coBe o. the detention deBend0 on the .act0 and circum0tance0 o. each ca0e" <ut in
ever- ca0e it mu0t <e temBorar- and la0t no longer than nece00ar- to e..ectuate the BurBo0e o. the
0toB.N 5.S. v. Sandoval" 29 (.3d %37 I1+th Cir.1994;. &hi0 rule i0 the 0ame a0 0et .orth in Nevada
6a=. But" note that Nevada Blace0 an a<0olute limit o. *+ minute0 .or a &err- 0toB. See al0o
8a0hington v. State" 94 Nev. 1$1 I197$;. N.!.S. 171.1231. ,rre0t i. Bro<a<le cau0e aBBear0. ,t an-
time a.ter the on0et o. the detention Bur0uant to N!S 171.123" the Ber0on 0o detained 0hall <e arre0ted
i. Bro<a<le cau0e .or an arre0t aBBear0. 1." a.ter inAuir- into the circum0tance0 =hich BromBted the
detention" no Bro<a<le cau0e .or arre0t aBBear0" 0uch Ber0on 0hall <e relea0ed. 1." in the cour0e o. the
detention" .urther in.ormation come0 to the ?no=ledge o. %7 the o..icer =hich amount0 toH/CCN to
arre0t Ii.e." more .act0 than needed .or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion;" then -ou can arre0t. 1n reBort =riting" <e
0ure to di..erentiate initial 0toB a0 inve0tigator- detention and =hen and ho= it e0calated into an
arre0t. Non'Search E)amination 1n 5.S. v. 4artin" $+* (.2d 2+4 I$th Cir. 19$*;" =here an o..icer
loo?ed through the =indo= o. a 0u0Bect>0 Bic?uB truc? and 0a= machine gun Bart0 '' he could 0eiOe
them =ithout =arrant" or in &e)a0 v. Bro=n" 4*+ 5.S. 73+ I19$3;" =here Bolice 0hined a .la0hlight
into a Ber0on>0 car =hich =a0 0toBBed at a routine tra..ic chec? Boint and 0a= =hite Bo=der and
<alloon0. &hi0 rule =a0 aBBlied in State v. 2er<ert 8right" 1+4 Nev. %21 I19$$;. &emBorar- SeiOure
o. 1tem0 !ea0ona<le 0u0Bicion can 0uBBort a temBorar- 0eiOure I=ithout a 0earch; o. Ber0onal item0
0uch a0 the 0u0Bect>0 0uitca0e in 5. S. v. /lace" 4*2 5.S. *9* I19$3; Ialthough in /lace" the 9+'minute
detention o. the 0uitca0e =a0 too long .or an inve0tigative 0eiOure =ith !CS" <ut =ithout Bro<a<le
- 76 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
cau0e;. ,n o..icerP0 removal o. a 0uitca0e .rom a <aggage area conve-or <elt" 0AueeOing the <ag and
then 0ni..ing the <ag =a0 neither a 0earch nor a 0eiOure. 5.S. v. :arcia" 42 (.3d *+4 I1+th Cir. 1994;
M&he temBorar- moving o. unattended luggage .rom one area o. a <u0 to another to .acilitate a dog
0ni.. i0 not a 0eiOure.M 5.S.
v. :raham" 9$2 (.2d 273 I$th Cir. 1992; M&he de.endantP0 onl- intere0t =a0 that the airline =ould
Blace hi0 luggage on the ne)t airBlane. &he Bolice Broce00 o. ta?ing the luggage .rom a cart to an
o..ice and having the dog 0ni.. it =a0 comBleted Brior to the time the luggage =ould have <een
Blaced on the airline. &here =a0 no 0eiOure o. the luggage until a.ter the dog alerted.N 5.S. v.
(uru?a=a" 99 (.3d 1147 I9th Cir.199*; Same re0ult in 5.S. v. 8ard" 144 (.3d 1+44 I7th Cir. 199$;.
Conducting a one'on'one at the 0cene or el0e=here. N3&E: N!S 171.123 0a-0 in Nevada the Hone on
oneH mu0t <e at Blace =here 0u0Bect detained. ,lthough no emergenc- e)ceBtion i0 li0ted in Nevada
0tatute0" Bro<a<l- it =ould <e 3@ to tran0Bort the 0u0Bect Ia00uming !CS; to the victim i. the victim
couldn>t <e tran0Borted. , 39'minute detention o. 2 0e)ual a00ault 0u0Bect0" including tran0Bortation
to a ho0Bital to <e vie=ed <- the victim" =a0 valid =here <a0ed on !CS. ,t lea0t 2% minute0 o. the
detention =a0 due to comBletion o. the victim>0 treatment at the ho0Bital <e.ore vie=ing the 0u0Bect0.
/olice =ere acting diligentl- to Bur0ue a mean0 o. inve0tigation" namel-" di0Bla- o. the de.endant0 to
the victim =hile her memor- =a0 0till .re0h" =hich =a0 li?el- to con.irm or di0Bel their 0u0Bicion
Auic?l-" and thi0 mean0 o. inve0tigation %$ o<viou0l- reAuired the rea0ona<le detention o. the
de.endant0.H State v. 4itchell" %+7 ,.2d 1+17" Conn.19$*;. I$; 5SE 3( 8E,/3NS 3!
2,NDC5((S 1N DE&EN&13N Numerou0 ca0e0 have held that di0Bla- o. =eaBon or handcu..ing
0u0Bect doe0 not in and o. it0el. convert a HdetentionH into an Harre0tH Ialthough the0e thing0 tend to
Bu0h in the direction o. arre0t'0ee Mlevel0 o. contactN .actor0; <ut -ou mu0t <e a<le to articulate =h-
the0e mean0 =ere emBlo-ed Ithing0 0uch a0 0u0Bicion directed at crime o. violence" detection
- 77 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
occurred at night" i0olated area" o..icer alone" ri0? o. .light;. 2andcu..0 o?a-" 5. S. v. Bauti0ta" *$4
(.2d 12$* I9th Cir. 19$2;. Same re0ult in 5.S. v. Blac?man" ** (.3d 1%72 I11th Cir. 199%; and al0o
in 5.S. v. &ilmon" 19 (.3d 1221 I7th Cir. 1994; /lacing 0u0Bect in Bolice car did not eAual an arre0t.
State v. Bra)ton" 49% ,.2d 273 I19$%;. Same re0ult in 5.S. v. Cannon" 29 (.3d 472 I9th Cir. 1994;.
1n 5. S. v. 4erritt" *9% (.2d 12*3 I1+th Cir. 19$2;" the Court held that Bointing a gun at a 0u0Bect
0toBBed on a rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion o. criminal activit- doe0 not nece00aril- turn the encounter into an
arre0t reAuiring Bro<a<le cau0e. , Bic?uB truc? <elieved to contain a murder .ugitive and 2 other
Ber0on0 =a0 0urrounded <- at lea0t 12 o..icer0" and a0 man- a0 three Bointed gun0 at the 0u0Bect0.
&hi0 0ho= o. .orce =a0 not unrea0ona<le" con0idering the Botential danger .aced <- the o..icer0. 3ne
o. the Ber0on0 <elieved to <e in the truc? =a0 =anted .or murder" and the Bolice had <een advi0ed that
he =a0 dangerou0 and heavil- armed. ,l0o" the Bolice had Ju0t <een to a hou0e =here the 0u0Bect =a0
thought to re0ide" and o<0erved a large a00ortment o. deadl- =eaBon0 and ammunition. &he 0ame
circum0tance0 0uBBorted a H.ri0?H o. the Bic?uB truc? .or =eaBon0. 4erritt ha0 <een .ollo=ed in
numerou0 other ca0e0: 5. S. v. 2ardnett" $+4 (.2d 3%3 I*th Cir. 19$*;ICC1 0aid 4 armed men =ere in
car;9 5. S. v. !oBer" 7+2 (.2d 9$4 I11th Cir. 19$3; I<ail JumBer;9 5. S. v. /erate" 719 (.2d 7+* I4th
Cir. 19$3;9 5. S. v. Kone0" 7%9 (.2d *33 I$th Cir. 19$%;9 5. S. v. &rullo" $+9 (.2d 1+$ I10t Cir. 19$7;"
5.S. v. ,lvareO" $99 (.2d $33 I9th Cir. 199+; IBo00i<le <an? ro<<er- and e)Blo0ive0;9 5.S. v. &a-lor"
$%7 (.2d 21+ I4th Cir. 19$$; I!CS 0toB and Bolice ?ne= Ber0on had <een convicted .or a00ault =ith
intent to murder and ro<<er-;9 5.S. v. &ilmon" 19 (.3d 1221 I7th Cir. 1994; I!CS 0toB o. <an? ro<<er
=ho threatened u0e o. e)Blo0ive09 5.S. v. Cole" 7+ (.3d 113 I4th Cir. 199%; IBolice 0u0Bected car
occuBant0 had a large amount o. drug0 and might <e armed;. 1n 2ou0ton v. Clar? Count-" 174 (.3d
$+9 I*th Cir. 1999; the Court held that it =a0 valid .or the o..icer" a.ter a !CS 0toB to handcu.. a
0u0Bect in a 0eriou0 violent crime" <ut the length and manner o. the o..icerP0 conduct mu0t <e related
- 78 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to the initial <a0i0 .or the 0toB9 Same ruling in 5.S. v. CamB<ell" 17$ (.3d 34% I%th Cir. 1999; valid
.or o..icer I=ith !CS .or the 0toB; to dra= gun and handcu.. the 0u0Bect =ho =a0 in a car =ith the
licen0e num<er o. a recent armed ro<<er-. 1n 5.S. v. Navarrete'Baron" 192 (.3d 7$* I$th Cir. 1999;
the Court held that %9 Bolice o..icer0 did not e)ceed 0coBe o. &err- 0toB =hen the- handcu..ed
occuBant0 o. automo<ile and Blaced them in 0eBarate Batrol car0 =hile o..icer0 0earched automo<ile9
there =ere t=o 0u0Bect0 and onl- t=o o..icer0 at 0cene" detention did not la0t .or unrea0ona<l- long
time" and in light o. dangerou0 nature o. 0u0Bected crime o. drug tra..ic?ing and good Bo00i<ilit- that
driver or Ba00enger had =eaBon" their con.inement =ith handcu..0 in <ac? o. Batrol car0 during
0earch =a0 rea0ona<l- nece00ar- to maintain 0tatu0 Auo" Brotect o..icer0" and allo= them to conduct
0earch immediatel- and =ithout inter.erence. 1n 5.S. v. 4aOa'Corrale0" 1$3 (.3d 111* I9th Cir.
1999; Drug en.orcement agent0> temBoraril- detaining de.endant =ith the u0e o. handcu..0 .or 1% to
3+ minute0 =hile Aue0tioning him" =a0 rea0ona<le and did not e0calate into a .ull'<lo=n arre0t" given
relativel- 0mall num<er o. o..icer0 Bre0ent at 0cene" .act that =eaBon0 had <een .ound and more
=eaBon0 Botentiall- remained hidden" .leeing Ber0on0 =ere on the loo0e" uncooBerative Ber0on0 =ere
in0ide the re0idence" an armed loo?out =a0 out0ide and <le= a car horn =hen DE, came. &he Court
held that Mintru0ive and aggre00ive Bolice conduct =ill not <e deemed an arre0t in tho0e circum0tance0
=hen it i0 a rea0ona<le re0Bon0e to legitimate 0a.et- concern0 on the Bart o. the inve0tigating o..icer0.
8hen =e ma?e 0uch Judgment0" common 0en0e and ordinar- human e)Berience rather than <right'
line rule0 0erve a0 our guide" and =e recogniOe that H=e allo= intru0ive and aggre00ive Bolice conduct
=ithout deeming it an arre0t in tho0e circum0tance0 =hen it i0 a rea0ona<le...H
,l0o" =here i0 the Broo. o. 0ervice on dda -oung0 .iling0D 8h- 0hould all other litigant0 have to
comBl- =ith 0uch technicalitie0. DD, 7oung get0 Baid enough and ha0 enough 0ta.. to comBl- Ju0t
- 79 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
li?e ever-one el0e mu0t. Doe0 the !eno Ku0tice Court have a corollar- to 8DC! 1+" reAuiring and
1nde) to E)hi<it0 and cover Bage0 .or e)hi<it0D
,ccording to the court in 1n re 8att0" %%7 ,.2d *+1 ID.C. 19$9;" a remand =ould <e nece00ar- in the
ca0e o. an aBBlicant =ho had <een convicted o. the.t" a 0econd'degree .elon-" and 0entenced to an
indeterminate term o. not le00 than one" nor more than 1%" -ear0 and .ined L1"%++" =here the 0tate
committee .ailed to conduct 0u..icient inAuir- or to con0ider adeAuatel- the evidence concerning the
aBBlicant>0 Bre0ent moral character and .itne00 to Bractice la=. 1n 0o ruling" the court Bointed out that
a count- attorne- in 5tah" the 0tate in =hich the conviction had occurred" initiated Broceeding0"
Bur0uant to it0 di0cretion" to e)Bunge <oth o. the aBBlicant>0 conviction0. Su<0eAuentl-" the court
0tated" the 5tah SuBreme Court ordered <oth o. the conviction0 e)Bunged a.ter .inding that the
aBBlicant had <een reha<ilitated and the e)Bungement0 =ould not <e again0t the Bu<lic intere0t.
4oreover" the court indicated" the 0tate o. 5tah al0o admitted the aBBlicant to it0 <ar =here he had
Bracticed .or aBBro)imatel- t=o -ear0 =ithout incident" the court adding that he had <een active in
hi0 communit-" =or?ing =ith the <ar" reBre0enting indigent0" 0erving on the Board o. Director0 o. the
Children>0 Center" and underta?ing other volunteer activitie0. !ea0oning thu0l-" the court ordered that
the ca0e <e remanded to the committee to conduct an indeBendent inve0tigation o." and to ma?e
.urther .inding0 a0 to" the aBBlicant>0 current moral .itne00 to Bractice la= in the Di0trict o. Colum<ia.
Vthe court" den-ing certi.ication o. a <ar aBBlicant =ho had <een involved in the.t and BerJur-
o..en0e0" reJected the aBBlicant>0 claim that he had re.ormed him0el." the court commenting that the
.act that he =a0 an adult =hen the action0 comBlained o. occurred cau0ed it to aBBroach the
aBBlicant>0 claim =ith caution" the court adding that the aBBlicant =a0 a .ir0t-ear la= 0tudent =hen he
0tole a 0hirt and BerJured him0el.9 one =ho ha0 0et on that .inal 0tage o. .ormal training .or admi00ion
to the <ar i0 not 0till to <e treated a0 a -outh" =ho doe0 not -et recogniOe and adhere to the
- 80 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rudimentar- reAuirement0 o. legal and moral <ehavior" and mem<er0 o. the <ar can <e a00umed to
?no= that certain ?ind0 o. conduct" generall- condemned <- re0Bon0i<le BeoBle" =ill <e ground0 .or
di0<arment" the court 0tating that =hile the aBBlicant 0u<mitted letter0 .rom 0everal mem<er0 o. the
Bro.e00ion in 0uBBort o. hi0 aBBlication" and =hile the aBBlicant>0 academic accomBli0hment0 and
other Bo0itive Aualitie0 =ere Bre0ent" i. the court i0 not convinced that an aBBlicant can =ith0tand
the0e temBtation0" it =ould <e remi00 to admit the aBBlicant" the court concluding that dou<t o.
con0eAuence mu0t <e re0olved in .avor o. the Brotection o. the Bu<lic" a0 a re0ult o. =hich the
aBBlicant =ould <e denied admi00ion at the Bre0ent time. ,BBlication o. &a-lor" 293 3r. 2$%" *47
/.2d 4*2 I19$2;Vin a ca0e in =hich a <ar aBBlicant engaged in thiever- o. a reBetitive nature" the
court denied the aBBlicant>0 aBBlication 0ince it aBBeared that the aBBlicant had not undergone the
reAui0ite reha<ilitation o. hi0 good moral character" the court Bointing out that the cru) o. the
aBBlicant>0 ca0e =a0 that hi0 Bre0ent moral character .itne00 Ju0ti.ied hi0 admi00ion to the <ar and that
hi0 reBetitive the.t0 =ere the re0ult o. a temBorar- a<erration that no longer e)i0ted and o. =hich
there =a0 no danger o. recurrence under the 0tre00 o. reBre0enting client09 the evidence o.
reha<ilitation in the ca0e re0ted Brimaril- on the oBinion o. a B0-chologi0t" -et the reBort .urni0hed no
in0ight into =h- a 2*'-ear'old college graduate =ho had comBleted one -ear o. evening la= 0chool
0tud- =ould reBeatedl- engage in Bett- thiever- =hile an invitee in the home0 o. hi0 cu0tomer0" and
the reBort o..ered no e)Blanation o. ho= thi0 comBul0ion" i. indeed it =ere a comBul0ion" had <een
treated" the court adding that it .urni0hed no rea0on0 =h- the aBBlicant>0 reha<ilitation 0hould <e
con0idered .ull and comBlete. ,BBlication o. :. S." 291 4d. 1$2" 433 ,.2d 11%9 I19$1;,ccording to
the court in 1n re Bar ,dmi00ion o. !iBBl" 2%+ 8i0. 2d %19" 2++2 81 1%" *39 N.8.2d %%3 I2++2; " a
<ar aBBlicant =ho had <een convicted o. mi0demeanor the.t Bre0ented 0u..icient evidence 0uBBorting
her reha<ilitation" and =ould there.ore <e admitted to the Bar o. 8i0con0in. &he court 0tated that
- 81 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=hile it aBBreciated that the <oard o. <ar e)aminer0 ma- have .elt con0trained to .ind that the
aBBlicant>0 variou0 in.raction0 Brecluded certi.-ing her character and .itne00 .or the BurBo0e0 o. <ar
admi00ion" it =a0 nonethele00 o. the oBinion that incident0 the <oard relied uBon" =hile certainl-
trou<ling" =ere not o. 0u..icient gravit- to =arrant a conclu0ion that the aBBlicant 0hould <e .orever
<arred .rom admi00ion to the Bractice o. la= in the 0tate. 1n 0o ruling" the court commented that it =a0
in.luenced <- the aBBlicant>0 0trong academic record" =hich 0he achieved =hile =or?ing 0everal Jo<0
and Ber.orming e)ten0ive communit- 0ervice" the court adding that it =a0 al0o in.luenced <- the
aBBlicant>0 evidence o. reha<ilitation a0 re.lected in the glo=ing te0timonial0 Brovided <- numerou0
emBlo-er0 .or =hom the aBBlicant had =or?ed. 4oreover" the court remar?ed" it did not aBBear that
the aBBlicant =ill.ull- .ailed to di0clo0e an- relevant in.ormation on her <ar aBBlication" and the
negative e..ect o. her earlier conduct =a0 diluted <- the Aue0tiona<le relia<ilit- o. 0ome o. the
in.ormation concerning that conduct. &he court concluded that the aBBlicant>0 record" =hile trou<ling
in certain o. it0 Barticular0" =a0 not 0u..icient" =hen revie=ed in the conte)t o. thi0 Broceeding" to
=arrant the conclu0ion that 0he .ailed to e0ta<li0h the reAui0ite character and .itne00 to <e admitted to
the Bractice o. la= in 8i0con0in1n (lorida Bd. o. Bar E)aminer0 !e: 6. @. D." 397 So. 2d *73 I(la.
19$1;" a Broceeding in0tituted on a Betition .or <ar admi00ion" the court held that the .inding0 o. the
<oard o. <ar e)aminer0 =ith re0Bect to an incident in =hich a <ar aBBlicant =a0 charged =ith" and
=a0 later acAuitted o." 0hoBli.ting" =a0 not alone 0u..icient to <ar the aBBlicant>0 admi00ion to Bractice
o. la=. &he aBBlicant>0 Jur- acAuittal" the court noted at the out0et" =hile not <inding on the <oard or
on the court in reaching conclu0ion0 regarding the alleged incident o. the.t it0el." had 0Becial
0igni.icance =ith regard to the <oard>0 conclu0ion that the aBBlicant lied three time0 in a00erting her
innocence. &hat i0" the court remar?ed" the Jur->0 conclu0ion vindicated the aBBlicant>0 declaration o.
innocence o. the crime charged <e.ore and at the Jur- trial" the court adding that her acAuittal =ould
- 82 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
continue to Ju0ti.- her Brote0tation o. innocence at her 0u<0eAuent <oard hearing" even though the
<oard might have thought it advantageou0 to ma?e a 0ho=ing o. reBentance. &he court concluded that
the aBBlicant had carried her <urden o. demon0trating good character" and had 0ho=n a Bre0ent
.itne00 to enter the Bractice o. la=" a0 a re0ult o. =hich her Betition .or admi00ion =ould <e granted.1n
,BBlication o. ,llan S." 2$2 4d. *$3" 3$7 ,.2d 271 I197$;" the court held that an aBBlicant .or
admi00ion to the 4ar-land Bar =ho had <een convicted in the Ba0t e0ta<li0hed hi0 HBre0entH moral
character .itne00 =here there =a0 no evidence in the record even remotel- 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 /age 21 3
,.6.!.*th 49 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%; \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov.
8or?0. 0ugge0ting that he had <een involved in an- mi0conduct in the -ear0 .ollo=ing hi0 the.t
o..en0e and =here he Bre0ented convincing evidence" including a letter .rom hi0 attorne-'emBlo-er"
o. hi0 reha<ilitation. &he ultimate te0t o. Bre0ent moral character" aBBlica<le to original admi00ion0 to
the <ar" i0 =hether" vie=ing the aBBlicant>0 character in the Beriod 0u<0eAuent to the aBBlicant>0
mi0conduct" he ha0 0o convincingl- reha<ilitated him0el. that it i0 BroBer that the aBBlicant <ecome a
mem<er o. a Bro.e00ion that mu0t 0tand .ree .rom all 0u0Bicion. &hat the a<0ence o. good moral
character in the Ba0t i0 0econdar- to the e)i0tence o. good moral character in the Bre0ent i0 a cardinal
BrinciBle in con0idering aBBlication0 .or original admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded.1n
- 83 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BrinciBle in con0idering aBBlication0 .or original admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded.1n
,.6.!.*th 49
mi0conduct in the -ear0 .ollo=ing hi0 the.t o..en0e and =here he Bre0ented convincing evidence"
including a letter .rom hi0 attorne-'emBlo-er" o. hi0 reha<ilitation. &he ultimate te0t o. Bre0ent moral
character" aBBlica<le to original admi00ion0 to the <ar" i0 =hether" vie=ing the aBBlicant>0 character in
the Beriod 0u<0eAuent to the aBBlicant>0 mi0conduct" he ha0 0o convincingl- reha<ilitated him0el. that
it i0 BroBer that the aBBlicant <ecome a mem<er o. a Bro.e00ion that mu0t 0tand .ree .rom all
0u0Bicion. &hat the a<0ence o. good moral character in the Ba0t i0 0econdar- to the e)i0tence o. good
moral character in the Bre0ent i0 a cardinal BrinciBle in con0idering aBBlication0 .or original
admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded.1n ,BBlication o. ,llan S." 2$2 4d. *$3" 3$7 ,.2d 271
I197$;" the court held that an aBBlicant .or admi00ion to the 4ar-land Bar =ho had <een convicted in
the Ba0t e0ta<li0hed hi0 HBre0entH moral character .itne00 =here there =a0 no evidence in the record
even remotel- 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 /age 21 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%; \ 2+11
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 0ugge0ting that he had <een involved in an-
- 84 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded.1n ,BBlication o. ,llan S." 2$2 4d. *$3" 3$7 ,.2d 271
I197$;" the court held that an aBBlicant .or admi00ion to the 4ar-land Bar =ho had <een convicted in
the Ba0t e0ta<li0hed hi0 HBre0entH moral character .itne00 =here there =a0 no evidence in the record
even remotel- 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 /age 21 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%; \ 2+11
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 0ugge0ting that he had <een involved in an-
admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded.
(rom N# Bar Bar Coun0el !eBort0: HN# Bar No.: 9*44 Doc?et No.: %*939 (iled: Novem<er 1%"
2+1+ 3!DE! 3( &E4/3!,!7 S5S/ENS13N &emBorar- 0u0Ben0ion =arranted .ollo=ing
re0BondentP0 criminal conviction. Bar Coun0el .or the State Bar o. Nevada .iled an SC! 111 Betition
a0?ing thi0 court to re.er attorne- Konathan !. /atter0on .or .ormal di0ciBlinar- Broceeding0 andCor to
- 85 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
temBoraril- 0u0Bend /atter0on .rom the Bractice o. la=. 3n 3cto<er 22" 2+1+" =e i00ued an order
re.erring /atter0on to the Southern Nevada Di0ciBlinar- Board .or commencement o. .ormal
di0ciBlinar- Broceeding0 and directing /atter0on to 0ho= cau0e =h- he 0hould not <e temBoraril-
0u0Bended .rom the Bractice o. la= Bending re0olution o. the .ormal di0ciBlinar- Broceeding0 again0t
him. /atter0on .iled a timel- re0Bon0e to our order. /atter0on .ir0t contend0 that he ha0 not 0u0tained a
conviction Bur0uant to SC! 111. 8e di0agree. (or BurBo0e0 o. the rule" Ma ]convictionP 0hall include
a Blea o. guilt-N ISC! 111I1;;. /atter0on admit0 that" even i. he comBlied .ull- =ith the condition0 o.
hi0 0ta-ed adJudication" he =ill 0till <e guilt- o. a crime. ,ccordingl-" he ha0 0u0tained a MconvictionN
.or BurBo0e0 o. SC! 111I1;. /atter0on ne)t contend0 that he had demon0trated good cau0e =h- he
0hould not <e temBoraril- 0u0Bended. 8e di0agree. !eceiving treatment" lac? o. client contact and
.inancial o<ligation0 are in0u..icient to overcome the .act that the crime to =hich he Bleaded guilt-
re.lect0 adver0el- on hi0 .itne00 to Bractice la=. ,ccordingl-" Bur0uant to SC! 111I9;" =e here<-
temBoraril- 0u0Bended attorne- Konathan !. /atter0on .rom the Bractice o. la= in Nevada. 1t i0 0o
3!DE!ED./ur0uant to SC! 111" temBorar- 0u0Ben0ion and re.erral to the aBBroBriate di0ciBlinar-
<oard are mandator- =hen an attorne- ha0 <een convicted o. a 0eriou0 crime" =hich include0 .elonie0
ISee SC! 111I*;'I$;;.
1n ,BBlication o. ,llan S." 2$2 4d. *$3" 3$7 ,.2d 271 I197$;" the court held that an aBBlicant .or
- 86 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BrinciBle in con0idering aBBlication0 .or original admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded. Criminal
!ecord a0 ,..ecting ,BBlicant>0 4oral Character .or /urBo0e0 o. ,dmi00ion to the Bar" 3 ,.6.!.*th
49 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%; &he.t or larcen- S4"%"13"14"1*'19
E)amBle0 o. 1llegal Conduct &hat 1nvolve0 4oral &urBitude , li0t o. crime0 involving moral
turBitude in =hich mem<er0 o. the <ar have <een con' 1* K6E:/!3 2*1 /age 2 1* K. 6egal /ro.. 2*1
\ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. victed and di0ciBlined <- the court0
include0 <ri<er-" Q(N12R em<eOOlement" Q(N13R eva0ion o. .ederal ta)e0" Q(N14R larcen-" Q(N1%R
ca0ting .ictitiou0^2*4 vote0" Q(N1*R e)tortion" Q(N17R receiving and concealing 0tolen BroBert-"
Q(N1$R mail .raud" Q(N19R and 0e)ual mi0conduct. Q(N2+R Crime0 &hat 4a- or 4a- Not Con0titute
4oral &urBitude (or 0everal rea0on0" it i0 imBo00i<le to comBile an e)hau0tive li0t o. crime0 =hich
de.initel- do not involve moral turBitude. (ir0t" =hether illegal conduct con0titute0 moral turBitude
o.ten deBend0 on the uniAue circum0tance0 0urrounding the commi00ion o. the crime. Second" court0
^2*% 0ometime0 do not 0a- =hether a crime con0titute0 moral turBitude. &hird" =hat con0titute0 0uch
a crime in one 0tate ma- not in another 0tate. (ourth" a0 Breviou0l- mentioned" the de.initional
Bro<lem0 Bo0e di..icultie0 =hen cla00i.-ing o..en0e0. But" the .ollo=ing are e)amBle0 o. o..en0e0 that
the ,la<ama court0 have held do not involve moral turBitude: a00ault and <atter-" di0tilling or
other=i0e violating the Brohi<ition la=0" Bu<lic drun?enne00 and di0orderl- conduct" 0Beeding"
- 87 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
re0i0ting the o..icer ma?ing arre0t0" and u0ing a<u0ive and o<0cene language. Q(N21R &he remainder
o. the di0cu00ion =ill <e divided into .our toBic0" the .ir0t <eing drug related o..en0e0. Q(N1+R. See"
e.g." Barto0 v. 5nited State0 Di0t. Ct. .or Di0t. o. Ne<ra0?a" 19 (.2d 722 I$th Cir.1927;. Q(N11R.
4odel !ule0 o. /ro.e00ional Conduct !ule $.4 comment I19$3;. Q(N12R. &he (lorida Bar v. !endina"
%$3 So.2d 314 I(la.1991; IBer curiam; Iattorne->0 attemBt to <ri<e 0tate attorne- to o<tain le00er
criminal 0entence .or client =arrant0 di0<arment;9 1n re Barron" 1%% 8.#a. 9$" 1$1 S.E.2d 273 I1971;
Iconviction o. con0Birac- to commit <ri<er- and o. <ri<ing a Juror i0 conviction involving moral
turBitude" reAuiring annulment o. licen0e to Bractice la=;9 C.. 1n re @err" $* 8a0h.2d *%%" %4$ /.2d
297 I197*; I?no=ingl- BarticiBating in attemBt to 0u<orn BerJur- i0 a crime involving moral turBitude
and =arrant0 di0<arment;. Q(N13R. 1n re Shumate" 3$2 S.8.2d 4+% I@-.19*4; Iconviction o. attorne-
o. em<eOOling mone- =hich came into hi0 charge a0 tru0tee in <an?ruBtc- and o. ?no=ingl- and
.raudulentl- concealing mone- .rom the tru0tee and .rom creditor0 in <an?ruBtc- Broceeding0"
involved moral turBitude and =a0 ground .or di0<arment;. Q(N14R. 1n re :rime0" 414 4ich. 4$3" 32*
N.8.2d 3$+ I19$2; I.elon- conviction0 .or =ill.ul eva0ion o. .ederal ta)e0 and coun0eling a client to
lie to inve0tigator0 in connection =ith ta) .raud ca0e =arrant di0<arment;9 See al0o @entuc?- State
Bar ,00oc. v. #incent" %37 S.8.2d 171 I@-.197*;. But c.." Clar? v. ,la<ama State Bar" %47 So.2d
4*1 I,la.19$9; I.ailure to Ba- .ederal income ta)e0 a.ter one ha0 .iled doe0 not con0titute a crime o.
moral turBitude a0 a matter o. la=;9 1n re (ahe-" $ Cal.3d $42" %+% /.2d 13*9" 1+* Cal.!Btr. 313
I1973; I?no=ing 1* K6E:/!3 2*1 /age $ 1* K. 6egal /ro.. 2*1 \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No
Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. and unla=.ul .ailure to .ile a .ederal income ta) return doe0 not
involve moral turBitude =ithin meaning o. the di0ciBlinar- 0tatute0 =here .ailure i0 not .or BurBo0e o.
Ber0onal .inancial gain or =ith intent to avoid ultimate Ba-ment o. ta) o<ligation0 <ut i0 re0ult o.
Bro.e00ional and dome0tic Bre00ure0 and B0-choneurotic di..icultie0;. Q(N1%R. 1n re Schuler" $1$ /.2d
- 88 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13$ ICal.1991; I!a<ino=itO" C.K." and 4atthe=0" K." di00enting; Iattorne->0 conviction .or
mi0demeanor the.t =arrant0 t=o -ear 0u0Ben0ion;9 See al0o @entuc?- State Bar ,00>n v. Scott" 4+9
S.8.2d 293 I@-.19**;. Q(N1*R. 1n re Smith" 1%$ 8.#a. 13" 2+* S.E.2d 92+ I1974; I.ederal
conviction o. con0Birac- to ca0t .ictitiou0 vote0 .or .ederal" 0tate" and local candidate0 in Brimar-
election con0titute0 conviction o. crime involving moral turBitude" reAuiring annulment o. licen0e to
Bractice la=;. Q(N17R. 6i<arian v. State Bar o. Cali.ornia" 3$ Cal.2d 32$" 239 /.2d $*% I19%2;
Iattorne- =ho =rote and mailed a threatening letter in an attemBt to 0ecure mone- .or hi0 client .ound
guilt- o. e)tortion" a crime o. moral turBitude" and 0u0Bended .rom the Bractice o. la= .or 0i)
month0;. Q(N1$R. 1n re &homB0on 37 Cal.,BB. 344" 174 /. $* I191$;9 See generall- ,nnotation"
,ttorne->0 Conviction in (oreign or (ederal Kuri0diction a0 :round .or Di0ciBlinar- ,ction" 9$
,.6.!.3d 3%7" 41$ I19$+;. Q(N19R. 1n re Com-n0" 132 8a0h. 391" 232 /. 2*9 I192%; Iconviction o.
attorne- .or u0ing mail0 o. 5nited State0 .or BurBo0e o. o<taining BroBert- under .al0e Breten0e0 =a0
ground0 .or di0<arment 0ince 0uch o..en0e involve0 moral turBitude;. Q(N2+R. 1n re @amin" 2*2
N.8.2d 1*2 I4inn.197$; I0e)ual a<u0e again0t children o. client =arrant0 di0<arment;9 See al0o 1n re
2o=ard" 297 3r. 174" *$1 /.2d 77% I19$4; Iin e)change .or legal 0ervice0" attorne- and client
engaged in 0e)ual activit-9 attorne- =a0 convicted o. Bro0titution" a mi0demeanor involving moral
turBitude" and received a Bu<lic reBrimand;. See generall- ,nnotation" ,ttorne-0 Se)ual
1mBroBrietie0" 43 ,.6.!.4th 1+*2 I19$*;. Q(N21R. C. :am<le" 4cElro->0 ,la<ama Evidence S
14%.+1I1+; I3d ed. 1977;. Q(N22R. 1n re @innear" 1+% N.K. 391" 394" %22 ,.2d 414" 41* I19$7;.
Q(N23R. 1n re 4claughlin" %22 ,.2d 999" 1+++ IN.K.19$7; IAuoting 1n re @innear" %22 ,.2d 414
IN.K.19$7;;.1n re Schuler" $1$ /.2d 13$ ICal.1991; I!a<ino=itO" C.K." and 4atthe=0" K." di00enting;
Iattorne->0 conviction .or mi0demeanor the.t =arrant0 t=o -ear 0u0Ben0ion;9 See al0o @entuc?- State
Bar ,00>n v. Scott" 4+9 S.8.2d 293 I@-.19**;.
- 89 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conviction o. .ive count0 o. the.t o. client .und0" neglect o. Bro<ate o. e0tate0 and conver0ion o.
.und0 <elonging to one o. tho0e e0tate0 i0 mi0conduct =arranting revocation o. licen0e to Bractice
la=. SC! 11.+%" 2+.32I3;" 2+.%+" 21.1+I1;. 4atter o. Di0ciBlinar- /roceeding0 ,gain0t 4c6ean" 143
8i0. 2d 371" 421 N.8.2d %1% I19$$;. Se)uall- hara00ing .emale emBlo-ee re0ulting in
mi0demeanorConviction o. mi0demeanor the.t =arrant0 1$Hmonth 0u0Ben0ion .rom Bractice o. la="
a0 reciBrocal di0ciBline" =ith 0u0Ben0ion to commence .rom date o. .iling o. di0ciBlinar- comBlaint"
rather than .rom date o. SuBreme Court order. SC! 22.2%. 4atter o. Di0ciBlinar- /roceeding0
,gain0t Sneed" 17* 8i0. 2d 12*" 499 N.8.2d **$ I1993;.5nauthoriOed retention o. .und0 <elonging
to la= .irm at =hich attorne- i0 emBlo-ed" .ailure to .ile criminal aBBeal =ithin aBBlica<le time
Beriod" .ailure to ?eeB client in.ormed a0 to 113 ,.6.!. 1179 /age 41* 113 ,.6.!. 1179 I3riginall-
Bu<li0hed in 193$; \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 0tatu0 o. matter
and BromBtl- comBl- =ith client rea0ona<le reAue0t0 .or in.ormation" and conviction o. .elon- the.t
.or endor0ing and deBo0iting la= .irm client .ee0 into Ber0onal account =arrant0 revocation o. licen0e
to Bractice la=. SC! 2+:1.4Ia;" 2+:$.4I<" c;. 4atter o. Di0ciBlinar- /roceeding0 ,gain0t 6e!o0e" 1$2
8i0. 2d %9%" %14 N.8.2d 412 I1994;.Conviction0 .or .elon- the.t <- <ailee and the.t <- .raud
=arrant revocation o. licen0e to Bractice la=. SC! 2+.+4I3; I!eBealed;9 SC! 2+:$.4I<;. 4atter o.
Di0ciBlinar- /roceeding0 ,gain0t 4cBride" 1$4 8i0. 2d *+4" %1* N.8.2d 421 I1994;.
:overnment i0 entitled to 0elect ca0e0 .or Bro0ecution =hich it <elieve0 =ill Bromote Bu<lic
comBliance =ith Selective Service regi0tration la=09 =hile deci0ion to Bro0ecute individual cannot <e
made in retaliation .or e)erci0e o. right under (ir0t ,mendment to Brote0t :overnment regi0tration
and dra.t Bolicie0" Bro0ecution o. Brote0tor0 =ho Bu<licl- and =ith attendant Bu<licit- a00ert alleged
- 90 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ber0onal Brivilege not to regi0ter a0 Bart o. Brote0t i0 not 0election on imBermi00i<le <a0i0. 5nited
State0 v 4artin I19$2" ND 1o=a; %%7 ( SuBB *$1" revd on other gnd0 IC,$ 1o=a; 733 (2d 13+9" cert
den I5S; $% 6. Ed. 2d 1%$" 1+% S Ct 1$*4. 8hat con0titute0 0uch di0criminator- Bro0ecution or
en.orcement o. la=0 a0 to Brovide valid de.en0e in 0tate criminal Broceeding0 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979;9$QaR 1nvidiou0ne00 or ar<itrarine00 o. Barticular <a0i0 .or 0electionQ47R
VDe.endant>0 e)erci0e o. con0titutional right0 QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0 it
=a0 held that 0election o. the de.endant0 0olel- on the <a0i0 o. their e)erci0e o. their con0titutional
right0 =ould <e invidiou0. 8here the de.endant0 contended that the- alone had <een 0ingled out .or
Bro0ecution 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age 4$ 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 0olel- <ecau0e o. their vigorou0 u0e o. their
(ir0t ,mendment right0 to Brote0t the Bolicie0 o. the 0chool and the 0chool 0-0tem" the court in
/eoBle v Serna I1977" 2d Di0t; 71 Cal ,BB 3d 229" 139 Cal !Btr 42*" concluded that tho0e
allegation0" i. Broved" =ould con0titute the de.en0e o. invidiou0 Bro0ecution" and held that it =a0
error .or the trial court to den- de.endant0 .ull di0cover- in connection =ith their claim. 1n 5nited
State0 v Smith I197*" Di0t Col ,BB; 3%4 ,2d %1+" the de.endant contended that the Bro0ecution>0
Bolic- o. not granting .ir0t'o..ender treatment to de.endant0 =ho had litigated an- i00ue0 in their
ca0e0 con0tituted a Bolic- o. uncon0titutional di0crimination again0t individual0 =ho cho0e to
e)erci0e their legal right0. ,lthough .inding that the government>0 Bolic- did not have that e..ect in
the ca0e <e.ore it" the court 0aid it had no Auarrel =ith the trial court>0 ruling that a Bolic- intended to
deter de.endant0 .rom e)erci0ing their legal right0 could not <e tolerated. C5456,&1#E
S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: See State v :il<ert I19$7" ,BB; 112 1daho $+%" 73* /2d $%7" S 2%Q<R. Q&oB o.
SectionR QEND 3( S5//6E4EN&R S $Q<R 1nvidiou0ne00 or ar<itrarine00 o. Barticular <a0i0 .or
0electionQ^RVSe) QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0" the court0 =ere divided on the
- 91 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i00ue o. =hether the 0e) o. the de.endant con0tituted an invidiou0 or ar<itrar- <a0i0 .or 0election .or
Bro0ecution. 1n the ca0e0 immediatel- .ollo=ing" the court0 held that 0e) =a0 an invidiou0 <a0i0. 1n
/eoBle v SuBerior Court o. ,lameda Count- I1977; 19 Cal 3d 33$" 13$ Cal !Btr **" %*2 /2d 131%"
in =hich the court reJected de.endant0> claim that the- had <een uncon0titutionall- di0criminated
again0t in the en.orcement o. the Bro0titution la=0" the court held that 0e) =a0 an ar<itrar-
cla00i.ication .or the BurBo0e0 o. a di0criminator- en.orcement claim. 1n Common=ealth v @ing
I1977" 4a00; 1977 ,dv Sheet0 2*3*" 372 NE2d 19*" the court concluded that a .emale charged =ith
Bro0titution or night=al?ing =ould <e entitled to a di0mi00al o. the charge0 =ith BreJudice on an
aBBroBriate 0ho=ing that the Bolice deBartment or the Bro0ecutor>0 o..ice .ollo=ed an unJu0ti.ia<le
Bolic- o. 0elective en.orcement again0t .emale Bro0titute0 and not male Bro0titute0. Noting that
,rticle 1+* o. the ,mendment0 to the Con0titution o. the Common=ealth o. 4a00achu0ett0 contain0
an e)Bre00 Brohi<ition o. di0crimination on the <a0i0 o. 0e)" grouBing it =ith other Brohi<ited <a0e0
.or di0crimination =hich are 0u<Ject to 0trict Judicial 0crutin-" the court concluded that it mu0t vie=
0e) di0crimination =ith the 0ame vigorou0 di0aBBroval that it =ould vie= racial" ethnic" and religiou0
di0crimination. Con0eAuentl-" the court 0aid" the Common=ealth could not en.orce the Bro0titution
la= again0t .emale Bro0titute0" <ut not again0t male Bro0titute0" unle00 it could demon0trate a
comBelling intere0t =hich =ould reAuire 0uch a Bolic-. 1n State v 4aldonado I197$" 4ont; %7$ /2d
29*" the court" in reJecting the de.endant>0 contention that the 4ontana Ber0i0tent .elon- o..ender
0tatute had <een di0criminatoril- aB' 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age 49 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall-
Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. Blied again0t him"
0tated" in dicta" that the con0ciou0 e)erci0e o. 0ome 0electivit- in en.orcement =a0 not in it0el. a
.ederal con0titutional violation a<0ent an allegation and a 0ho=ing that the 0election =a0 deli<eratel-
<a0ed uBon an unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard or ar<itrar- cla00i.ication 0uch a0 0e). 2o=ever" in the .ollo=ing
- 92 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ca0e in =hich the de.endant claimed that 0he had <een di0criminatoril- Bro0ecuted on the <a0i0 o. 0e)"
the court held that" a0 a matter o. con0titutional interBretation" 0e) had not <een declared an invidiou0
or ar<itrar- <a0i0 .or di0crimination. 1n 4inneaBoli0 v Bu0chette I197*; 3+7 4inn *+" 24+ N82d
%++" the de.endant" charged =ith Bro0titution" contended that the 0tatute =a0 di0criminatoril-
en.orced again0t her on the <a0i0 o. 0e). Stating that in order to <e a violation o. the eAual Brotection
clau0e" entitling de.endant to a di0mi00al o. the charge" the arre0t mu0t have <een <a0ed uBon an
unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard 0uch a0 race" religion" or other ar<itrar- cla00i.ication" the court 0aid that" a0 a
matter o. con0titutional interBretation" di0crimination <a0ed uBon 0e) had not <een declared a matter
.or 0trict 0crutin-" =here the 0tate or local authorit- mu0t 0ho= a comBelling intere0t in emBlo-ing the
cla00i.ication. Concluding that all that =a0 needed to <e 0ho=n =a0 a rational <a0i0 .or the 0electivit-"
the court 0aid that =hile there had <een a con0ciou0 0electivit- in the en.orcement o. the Bro0titution
ordinance" there =a0 a rational relation0hiB <et=een that 0electivit- and the governmental o<Jective
o. controlling Bro0titution. C5456,&1#E S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: See State v Evan0 I19$%; 73 NC
,BB 214" 32* SE2d 3+3" S 22QaR. Q&oB o. SectionR QEND 3( S5//6E4EN&R S $QcR 1nvidiou0ne00 or
ar<itrarine00 o. Barticular <a0i0 .or 0electionQ^RV&-Be o. legal activit- illegall- conducted
QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e in =hich de.endant contended that he had <een
di0criminated again0t on the <a0i0 o. the Barticular ?ind o. generall- legal activit- =hich he =a0
conducting in an illegal manner" the court held that di0crimination <a0ed uBon the t-Be o. <u0ine00
conducted <- the de.endant =ould reBre0ent a rea0ona<le cla00i.ication. ,BBealing .rom hi0
conviction .or violating a Sunda- clo0ing la=" the de.endant in &a-lor v /ine Blu.. I19%*; 22* ,r?
3+9" 2$9 S82d *79" cert den 3%2 5S $94" 1 6 Ed 2d $%" 77 S Ct 12%" contended that the 0tatute =a0
<eing di0criminatoril- en.orced" in that the Bolice arre0ted ever-one =ho oBerated a grocer- on
Sunda-" <ut allo=ed other <u0ine00e0 to remain oBen on that da-. 2o=ever" concluding that a
- 93 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
di0tinction <et=een grocer- 0tore0 and other <u0ine00e0 =ould reBre0ent a rea0ona<le cla00i.ication"
the court held the de.endant =a0 entitled onl- to <e treated in the 0ame manner a0 other grocer0" and
uBheld hi0 conviction. C5456,&1#E S5//6E4EN& 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age %+ 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. Ca0e0:
Native ,merican de.endant .ailed to e0ta<li0h Brima .acie ca0e o. 0elective or di0criminator-
Bro0ecution a0 ha<itual criminal =here" though hi0 evidence e0ta<li0hed that 2* individual0 during
1971 to 1977 =ere eligi<le .or Bro0ecution a0 ha<itual criminal0" that 1$ =ere Native ,merican0
I*9.2Y; and eight =ere Cauca0ian I3+.$Y;" and that o. the eight individual0 actuall- Bro0ecuted a0
ha<itual criminal0" 0even =ere Native ,merican0 I$7.%Y;" 0iOe o. grouB e)amined rendered 0tati0tic0
inconclu0ive. State v Bird 2ead I1979; 2+4 Ne< $+7" 2$% N82d *9$. Burglar-" e)tortion" larcen-"
ro<<er-" and the.t QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0 in =hich the de.endant0 =ere
convicted o. <urglar-" larcen-" ro<<er-" the.t" and e)tortion" the court0 held that the de.en0e o.
di0criminator- Bro0ecution =a0 not e0ta<li0hed <- the de.endant. 1n Blount v Smith I1977" 4D /a;
44+ ( SuBB %2$" the court reJected the di0criminator- en.orcement claim o. Blainti..0" =ho =ere
convicted in 0tate court o. .raudulentl- receiving unemBlo-ment comBen0ation <ene.it0. &he Bureau
o. EmBlo-ment Securit- did not in0titute criminal Broceeding0 again0t ever- claimant .ound to have
received overBa-ment0" <ut onl- Bro0ecuted the mo0t 0eriou0 violator0. &he court 0aid that to Brevail
on their eAual Brotection claim0" Blainti..0 =ould have to 0ho= not onl- that the- =ere Bro0ecuted
=hile other0 =ere not" <ut al0o that the 0election =a0 made on the <a0i0 o. 0ome ar<itrar-
cla00i.ication. Noting that the Bureau o. EmBlo-ment Securit- manual o. oBeration0 and Brocedure0
Brovided e)ten0ive nondi0criminator- criteria to guide agenc- determination0 a0 to =hich violation0
=arranted Bro0ecution" the court 0aid that no=here in the record <e.ore it =a0 there an- 0ugge0tion
that the deci0ion to Bro0ecute Blainti..0 =a0 made on an- <a0i0 other than the criteria 0et .orth in the
- 94 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
manual" and accordingl- denied Blainti..0> claim .or relie.. 8here a de.endant =a0 convicted o.
ro<<er- =hich occurred =hen hi0 code.endant" a =oman" lured the victim into a <uilding .or BurBo0e0
o. Bro0titution" the court in /eoBle v 8illiam0 I19*%" 10t Di0t; 23% Cal ,BB 2d 3$9" 4% Cal !Btr 427"
reJected a0 <eing o<viou0l- irrelevant the claim o. de.endant that he =a0 di0criminated again0t
<ecau0e he and hi0 code.endant 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age %7 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed
in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. =ere Bro0ecuted .or ro<<er-"
=herea0 the victim =a0 not charged =ith adulter-" con0Birac- to commit act0 o. Bro0titution" or the
li?e. 1n /eoBle v &homB0on I197+" 2d Di0t; 1+ Cal ,BB 3d 129" $$ Cal !Btr 7%3" in =hich de.endant
=a0 convicted o. the.t" the court recogniOed that the .act that 0ome =rongdoer0 are Broceeded again0t
=hile other0" eAuall- 0u0Bect" are not doe0 not" o. it0el." amount to illegal di0crimination" and that
mere la)it- in en.orcement o. la=0 <- Bu<lic o..icial0 i0 not a denial o. eAual Brotection. De.endant"
convicted o. the.t o. trade 0ecret0" contended on aBBeal in /eoBle v Serrata I197*" 10t Di0t; *2 Cal
,BB 3d 9" 133 Cal !Btr 144" $4 ,6!3d 9%2" that hi0 conviction 0hould <e rever0ed <ecau0e the Benal
code =a0 0electivel- and di0criminatoril- en.orced again0t him. De.endant <a0ed hi0 argument uBon
the .act that there =ere no ca0e0 cited in the annotation0 to the 0tatute" =hich had <een enacted nearl-
1+ -ear0 earlier" and uBon the additional .act that the te0timon- at the trial e0ta<li0hed that man-
the.t0 o. the de.endant>0 emBlo-er>0 trade 0ecret0 had occurred Brior to the the.t0 .or =hich he =a0
Bro0ecuted and convicted. 1n holding that the argument =a0 untena<le" the court 0aid that the
0elective en.orcement o. a Benal 0tatute =a0 not a denial o. eAual Brotection o. the la=0 unle00 the
0election =a0 deli<eratel- <a0ed uBon an unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard. &he court 0aid that the record =a0
devoid o. an- evidence that the la= en.orcement authoritie0 0ingled de.endant out .or Bro0ecution
<a0ed uBon an- 0uch unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard" =here the record" 0ho=ing that de.endant>0 Bro0ecution
and conviction =ere the re0ult o. an e)tremel- di..icult" comBlicated" and e)Ben0ive inve0tigation
- 95 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in0tigated <- hi0 emBlo-er onl- <ecau0e the value o. the 0tolen trade 0ecret0 =a0 e)tremel- great"
0ugge0ted the rea0on the 0tatute =a0 0o rarel- en.orced. 1n /eoBle v 4ac(arland I197%; 1$9 Colo
3*3" %4+ /2d 1+73" de.endant" convicted o. the.t" argued that he =a0 denied eAual Brotection o. the
la= <ecau0e the Bro0ecution o..ered immunit- to the other Bartie0 to the crime" <ut not to de.endant.
Stating that the con0ciou0 e)erci0e o. 0electivit- in the en.orcement o. la=0 i0 not in it0el. a
con0titutional violation a<0ent a 0ho=ing that a Bro0ecutor ha0 e)erci0ed a Bolic- o. 0electivit- <a0ed
uBon an unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard" the court" 0a-ing that de.endant had the <urden o. Broving
di0criminator- Bro0ecution" held that <ald allegation0 o. 0uch Bractice0 hardl- 0u..iced. De.endant0"
.ound guilt- o. e)tortion" contended in /eoBle v /lamondon I197%; *4 4ich ,BB 413" 23* N82d $*
Idi0agreed =ith on other ground0 /eoBle v /ulle-" ** 4ich ,BB 321" 239 N82d 3**; and Idi0agreed
=ith on other ground0 /eoBle v ,mi0on" 7+ 4ich ,BB 7+" 24% N82d 4+%; and revd on other ground0
4++ 4ich %%9" 2%% N82d *19 and Iovrld on other ground0 /eoBle v Sacora.a0" 7* 4ich ,BB 37+"
2%* N82d %99;" that the deci0ion to Bro0ecute them" and the manner in =hich the Bro0ecution =a0
handled" =a0 done 0o =ith an Hevil e-eH and an HuneAual hand"H contrar- to the BrinciBle0 o. 7ic? 8o
v 2oB?in0 I1$$*; 11$ 5S 3%*" 3+ 6 Ed 22+" * S Ct 1+*4. Stating that it =a0 =ell e0ta<li0hed that
con0titutional Brovi0ion0 .or<id di0criminator- en.orcement o. the la=0" the court 0aid that a violation
o. eAual Brotection =ill not <e .ound unle00 the deci0ion to Bro0ecute =a0 <a0ed uBon an ar<itrar- or
invidiou0 cla00i.ication. Noting that de.endant0 =ere advocate0 .or a num<er o. antie0ta<li0hment
cau0e0" the court 0aid that de.endant0 .ailed to 0ho= that other alleged e)tortioni0t0 =ith
Broe0ta<li0hment vie=Boint0 =ere not 0u<Ject0 o. Bro0ecution. (inding that de.endant0 .ailed to ma?e
an a..irmative 0ho=ing that the deci0ion to Bro0ecute them =a0 Bremi0ed on an ar<itrar-
cla00i.ication" the court held that their argument =a0 =ithout merit. De.endant" convicted o. .ir0t'
degree <urglar-" comBlained on aBBeal in State v ,ndre=0 I19*9; 2$2 4inn 3$*" 1*% N82d %2$" o.
- 96 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the allegedl- ar<itrar- and di0criminator- deci0ion 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age %$ 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. o. the
Bro0ecutor to treat him more 0everel- than hi0 accomBlice =ho" a.ter Blea <argaining" =a0 charged
=ith third'degree <urglar-. &he record did not 0ho= =hat con0ideration0 imBelled the Bro0ecution to
grant lenienc- to de.endant>0 accomBlice or" i. it =a0 indeed the re0ult o. a Blea <argain" =h- the
0ame <argain =a0 not negotiated =ith de.endant. De.endant attemBted to in.er that no rational <a0i0
e)i0ted .or the di0Barate treatment" claiming that nothing 0ugge0ted that de.endant =a0 a more active
BarticiBant in the crime than hi0 accomBlice" that de.endant>0 Brior criminal record =a0 no =or0e than
the accomBlice>0" that the accomBlice gave the Bro0ecution no greater co'oBeration than did
de.endant" and that their relative reha<ilitation Botential0 =ere not nota<l- di..erent. 2o=ever" the
court 0aid that the arra- o. element0 involved in an evaluation o. 0uch .actor0 =a0 o<viou0l- too
numerou0 and comBle) to te0t de.endant>0 claim on that <a0i0 alone. Stating that a di0criminator-
BurBo0e =ill not <e Bre0umed" the court 0aid that the record did not e0ta<li0h that there had <een an
a<u0e o. Bro0ecutorial di0cretion. De.endant" convicted o. Bett- larcen- .or removing .rom a Bu<lic
li<rar- a magaOine <ecau0e it contained =hat he regarded to <e an o<0cene Ba00age" contended on
aBBeal in /eoBle v :orton I19*9; *+ 4i0c 2d $33" 3+4 N7S2d *9" that the trial court erred in not
Bermitting him to Bre0ent evidence in 0uBBort o. hi0 claim o. di0criminator- en.orcement o. the la=
again0t him. SBeci.icall-" de.endant 0ought to introduce evidence that the li<rar- had deBarted .rom
it0 u0ual Bractice regarding overdue <oo?0 =hich had not <een returned and had 0ingled him out .or
criminal Bro0ecution. Stating that de.endant>0 =rong.ul act could not <e eAuated =ith the .ailure to
return a <oo? =hich had <een BroBerl- <orro=ed in the .ir0t in0tance" the court 0aid that the
Brocedure cu0tomaril- emBlo-ed again0t delinAuent <orro=er0 =ould <e o. no relevanc-" and held
that there =a0 no genuine i00ue o. di0criminator- criminal Bro0ecution. C5456,&1#E
- 97 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: De.endant convicted o. the.t .ailed to e0ta<li0h vindictivene00 on Bart o.
Bro0ecution" a<0ent 0ho=ing in record that" a0 contended" 0tate attemBted to have de.en0e coun0el
removed in court Broceeding0 and that maliciou0 attitude e)i0ted to=ard de.endant <ecau0e o. hi0
nationalit-" lac? o. ,riOona re0idenc- and hi0 de.en0e coun0el. State v Kahn0 I19$2" ,BB; 133 ,riO
%*2" *%3 /2d 19. /ro0ecution o. Blac? 6i<eration ,rm- de.endant0 on 0tate <an? ro<<er- charge0
.ollo=ing .ederal conviction on <an? ro<<er- charge0 =a0 not di0criminator- Bro0ecution =here
e)amination o. Bro0ecution hi0tor- 0urrounding 0i) <an? ro<<erie0 in 0ame count- at time in Aue0tion
=a0 inconclu0ive regarding Bolitical or racial motivation0. State v 2a0?in0 I19$2; 1$$ Conn 432" 4%+
,2d $2$. Blac? de.endant convicted o. the.t in Bro0ecution ari0ing .rom undercover H0tingH oBeration
in Bredominantl- <lac? neigh<orhood =ith 0tati0ticall- high <urglarl- rate .ailed to e0ta<li0h raciall-
di0criminator- imBact and di0criminator- intent. State v !u00ell I19$4" 4inn; 343 N82d 3*. See
/eoBle v Dra?e I19$3" 3d DeBt; 92 ,BB Div 2d 1+11" 4*1 N7S2d %+9" a..d in Bart and mod in Bart
on other gnd0" remanded *1 N72d 3%9" 474 N7S2d 27*" 4*2 NE2d 37*" later Broceeding I19$4; 12*
4i0c 2d 3+9" 4$2 N7S2d 2+$" S 21. See State v SchmitO I19$$" ND; 431 N82d 3+%" S $QiR. 9%
,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age %9 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No
Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. Q&oB o. SectionR QEND 3( S5//6E4EN&R
3&2E! (35!&2 ,4END4EN& 1N&!5S13NS ISE,!C2 G
EN&!1ES;
,. SE,!C2 1NC1DEN& &3 ,!!ES& MS1&,N
I1; 1n :eneral
, MS1&,N i0 a MBolic- Ju0ti.iedN 0earch in the 0en0e that it doe0 not reAuire it0 o=n
- 98 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ju0ti.ication in term0 o. Bro<a<le cau0e or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion. ,ll that i0 reAuired i0 a
la=.ul cu0todial arre0t and a S1&, can occur.
1n 1llinoi0 v. 6a(a-ette" 4*2 5.S. *4+ I19$3;" the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid" M&he
authorit- to 0earch the Ber0on incident to a la=.ul cu0todial arre0t" =hile <a0ed on the
need to di0arm and to di0cover evidence" doe0 not deBend on =hat a court ma- later
decide =a0 the Bro<a<ilit- in a Barticular arre0t 0ituation that =eaBon0 or evidence
=ould in .act <e .ound on the Ber0on o. the 0u0Bect ... the arre0t <eing la=.ul mean0
the S1&, reAuire0 no additional Ju0ti.ication.N
1n 5nited State0 v. !o<in0on" 414 5.S. 21$ I1979; &he Court 0aid all cu0todial
arre0t0 .rom murder to tra..ic violation0 are eAual in Ju0ti.-ing S1&,.
I2; ScoBe o. S1&,
Since the S1&, i0 automatic =ith a la=.ul cu0todial arre0t" the legal i00ue0 in thi0
area all involve the 0coBe o. the S1&,. 2o= 0oon mu0t it occurD 2o= .ar can it go in
term0 o. area and intru0ionD &he .ollo=ing ca0e0 Brovide 0ome guideline0 <ut o..icer0
0hould realiOe that the more I1; time goe0 <- and I2; the .urther a=a- .rom the e)act
Blace o. the arre0t and I3; the harder it =ould <e .or the arre0tee to get into the area
0earched" the le00 li?el- it =ill <e a valid S1&,.
Ia; &ime
&he general rule i0 that the S1&, mu0t <e McontemBoraneou0N =ith the arre0t. 1t i0
a)iomatic that a S1&, cannot Brecede an arre0t in Broviding the Ju0ti.ication .or the
arre0t" <ut i. the Ju0ti.ication e)i0t0 alread- Iie ' Bolice had /CC <e.ore the S1&,; then the
.act that the .ormal arre0t immediatel- .ollo=ed the S1&, made no di..erence. !a=ling0
v. @entuc?-" 44$ 5.S. 9$ I19$+;.
- 99 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,lthough the 0earch mu0t <e contemBoraneou0" court0 Brovide Bolice a <rie.
cu0hion o. time until the- have gained comBlete control o. the 0ituation. 5.S. v.
L*39"%%$ in 5.S. Currenc-" 9%% (.2d 712 ID.C. Cir. 1992; &here i0 no Brohi<ition
again0t a rea0ona<le dela- <et=een the elimination o. danger and the 0earch. 5.S. v.
2an" 74 (.3d %37I4th Cir. 199*; , 0earch incident to arre0t mu0t <e contemBoraneou0
<ut not nece00aril- immediate. 5.S. v. 8illi0" 37 (.3d 313 I7th Cir. 1994;.IDi..erent
77
Ber0on .rom 5.S. v. 8illi0 in Brete)t arre0t;.
1n 5.S. v. Kohn0on" 114 (.3d 43% I4th Cir. 1997;,BBl-ing 2an to the .act0 at
hand" no dou<t e)i0t0 that the car =a0 =ithin Kohn0on>0 immediate control at the
<eginning o. hi0 encounter =ith the o..icer09 the 0earch =a0 conducted at the 0cene o. the
arre0t" a.ter the o..icer0 moved the car to the .ront o. the 0hoBBing center mall into a
<etter lighted area9 and the dela- <et=een the elimination o. the danger''Kohn0on'' and
the 0earch =a0 not unrea0ona<le.
I<; /lace 0earched
1n Chimel v. Cali.ornia" 39% 5.S. 7%2I19*9; the 5.S. SuBreme Court held that
Bolice could not 0earch area0 in0ide a hou0e out0ide the immediate control o. the 0u0Bect
at the time o. the la=.ul arre0t. /olice are not allo=ed to 0imulate circum0tance0
Ju0ti.-ing a S1&, merel- <- <ringing the item the- =i0h to 0earch into the area near the
Ber0on arre0ted or vice ver0a. 5.S. v. /erea" 9$* (.2d *33 I2d Cir. 1993; 2o=ever" i. the
0u0Bect voluntaril- a0?0 to move a<out hi0 Bremi0e0 Ito get a coat or other clothe0" etc.;"
the o..icer can monitor the arre0teeP0 movement0 and S1&, ma- <e valid at another
location. 8a0hington v. Chri0man" 4%% 5.S. 1 I19$2;.
- 100 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1tem0 Himmediatel- a00ociated =ith the Ber0onH can <e 0earched incident to the
arre0t o. the Ber0on including a =oman>0 0houlder <ag regardle00 o. =hether on her
0houlder or on the ground a .e= .eet a=a-. 5.S. v. Nel0on" 1+2 (.3d 1344 I4th Cir. 199*;
1n 5.S. v. Cotnam" $$ (.3d 4$7 I7th Cir. 199*; 3@ to 0earch arre0teeP0 Jac?et la-ing a
.e= .eet a=a- at arre0t. 5.S. v. 3rtiO" $4 (.3d 977 I7th Cir. 199*; 3@ to Bu0h <utton on
Bager .ound on de.endant at time o. arre0t revealing numeric me00age0.
Some court0 allo= a S1&, o. a loc?ed area or container" 5.S. v. :onOale0" 71
(.3d $19 I11th Cir.199*; and Clemon0 v. 5.S." 72 (.3d 12$ I4th Cir. 199%;. 2o=ever" i.
the arre0tee i0 handcu..ed and in Bolice cu0tod- and ha0 no chance o. unloc?ing and
oBening the container" it 0eem0 that 0earche0 o. loc?ed container0 reAuire a 0earch
=arrant or other e)ceBtion.I0uch a0 inventor- 0earch or con0ent;.
1n 5.S. v. &araOon" 9$9 (.2d 1+4% I9th Cir. 1993; Bolice could 0earch a de0?
dra=er =here de.endant =a0 0itting at time o. arre0t even though he =a0 handcu..ed.
Same ruling in 5.S. v. 2ud0on" 1++ (.3d 14+9 I9th Cir. 199*; 3@ to 0earch ri.le ca0e at
.eet o. Ber0on arre0ted even though he =a0 removed .rom the room 3 minute0 earlier.
Same ruling in 5.S. v. 2orne" 4 (.3d %97 I$th Cir. 1993; 0earch o. 0eat =here he =a0
arre0ted even though handcu..ed.
Ic; ,rre0tee 2andcu..ed
Ever- ca0e decided in S1&, la= 0a-0 that it ma?e0 no di..erence that the Ber0on
=a0 in handcu..0 at the time o. the S1&, a0 long a0 the other S1&, reAuirement0 are met.
Chimel v. Cali.ornia" 5nited State0 v. 2elm0etter" %* (. 3d 21 I%th Cir.199%; ISee
ca0e0 a<ove;.
- 101 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2ii<el v. Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court o. Nevada
(rom 8i?iBedia" the .ree enc-cloBedia
2ii<el v. Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court o. Nevada
Seal o. the 5nited State0 SuBreme Court.0vg
SuBreme Court o. the 5nited State0
,rgued 4arch 22" 2++4
Decided Kune 21" 2++4
(ull ca0e name 6arr- D. 2ii<el v. Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court o. Nevada" 2um<oldt Count-"
et al.
Citation0 %42 5.S. 177 Imore;
124 S. Ct. 24%19 1%9 6. Ed. 2d 2929 2++4 5.S. 6EZ1S 43$%9 72 5.S.6.8. 4%+99 17 (la. 6. 8ee?l-
(ed. S 4+*
/rior hi0tor- De.endant convicted" Ku0tice Court o. 5nion &o=n0hiB" 2um<oldt Count-9 a..irmed"
Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court" 2um<oldt Count-9 a..irmed" %9 /.3d 12+1 INev. 2++2;9 cert. granted"
%4+ 5.S. 9*% I2++3;
Su<0eAuent hi0tor- 5S SuBreme Court rehearing denied <- 2ii<el v. Si)th Kudicial Di0t. Court"
%42 5.S. 9*+" 12% S. Ct. 1$" 1%9 6. Ed. 2d $49" 2++4 5.S. 6EZ1S 4$*$ I5.S." ,ug. 23" 2++4;
2olding
6a=0 reAuiring 0u0Bect0 to identi.- them0elve0 during inve0tigative 0toB0 <- la= en.orcement o..icer0
do not violate the (ourth ,mendment" and do not nece00aril- violate the (i.th ,mendment.Q1R
Court mem<er0hiB
Chie. Ku0tice
- 102 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8illiam !ehnAui0t
,00ociate Ku0tice0
Kohn /. Steven0 _ Sandra Da- 3>Connor
,ntonin Scalia _ ,nthon- @enned-
David Souter _ Clarence &homa0
!uth Bader :in0<urg _ SteBhen Bre-er
Ca0e oBinion0
4aJorit- @enned-" Joined <- !ehnAui0t" 3>Connor" Scalia" &homa0
Di00ent Steven0
Di00ent Bre-er" Joined <- Souter" :in0<urg
6a=0 aBBlied
5.S. Con0t. amend0. 1#" #9 Nev. !ev. Stat. S 171.123I3;
2ii<el v. Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court o. Nevada" %42 5.S. 177 I2++4;" held that 0tatute0 reAuiring
0u0Bect0 to di0clo0e their name0 during Bolice inve0tigation0 did not violate the (ourth ,mendment i.
the 0tatute .ir0t reAuired rea0ona<le and articula<le 0u0Bicion o. criminal involvement. 5nder the
ru<ric o. &err- v. 3hio" 392 5.S. 1 I19*$;" the minimal intru0ion on a 0u0Bect>0 Brivac-" and the
legitimate need o. la= en.orcement o..icer0 to Auic?l- di0Bel 0u0Bicion that an individual i0 engaged
in criminal activit-" Ju0ti.ied reAuiring a 0u0Bect to di0clo0e hi0 name.
&he Court al0o held that the identi.ication reAuirement did not violate 2ii<el>0 (i.th ,mendment
right0 <ecau0e he had no rea0ona<le <elie. that hi0 name =ould <e u0ed to incriminate him9 ho=ever"
- 103 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Court le.t oBen the Bo00i<ilit- that (i.th ,mendment Brivilege might aBBl- in a 0ituation =here
there =a0 a rea0ona<le <elie. that giving a name could <e incriminating.Q1R
Content0
1 Bac?ground o. the ca0e
2 4aJorit- oBinion
3 Di00enting oBinion0
4 See al0o
% Note0
* E)ternal lin?0
QeditR Bac?ground o. the ca0e
Nevada ha0 a M0toB'and'identi.-N la= that allo=0 a Bolice o..icer to detain an- Ber0on he encounter0
Munder circum0tance0 =hich rea0ona<l- indicate that the Ber0on ha0 committed" i0 committing or i0
a<out to commit a crimeN9 the Ber0on ma- <e detained onl- to Ma0certain hi0 identit- and the
0u0Biciou0 circum0tance0 0urrounding hi0 Bre0ence a<road.N 1n turn" the la= reAuire0 the Ber0on
detained to Midenti.- him0el.N" <ut doe0 not comBel the Ber0on to an0=er another Aue0tion0 But to
him <- the o..icer. &he Nevada SuBreme Court ha0 interBreted that Midenti.- him0el.N to mean to
merel- 0tate hi0 name. ,0 o. ,Bril 2++$" 23 other 0tate0Q2R have 0imilar la=0.
3n the evening o. 4a- 21" 2+++" the 0heri..P0 deBartment in 2um<oldt Count-" Nevada received a
reBort that a man had a00aulted a =oman in a red and 0ilver :4C truc? on :ra00 #alle- !oad. &he
- 104 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
re0Bonding deBut- .ound a truc? Bar?ed on the 0ide o. the road. , man =a0 0mo?ing a cigarette
<e0ide the truc?" and a -oung =oman =a0 0itting in0ide it. &he deBut- o<0erved 0?id mar?0 in the
gravel <ehind the vehicle" leading him to <elieve the vehicle had come to a 0udden 0toB.
&he deBut- e)Blained to the man that there had <een a reBort o. a .ight <et=een the man and the
-oung =oman" and a0?ed the man i. he had an- identi.ication on him. &he man Brote0ted that he had
no rea0on to Brovide identi.ication" and <ecame ill'temBered =hen the deBut- continued to Bre00 him
.or hi0 identi.ication. &he man then a0?ed the deBut- =hat crime he =a0 <eing accu0ed o." a0 the
deBut- continued hi0 reAue0t0 .or identi.ication" 0tating that he =a0 Mconducting an inve0tigationN.
&he man Ber0i0ted in hi0 re.u0al to Brovide identi.ication" a0?ing in0tead to <e handcu..ed and ta?en
to Jail. &he deBut- continued to a0? .or the manP0 identi.ication" 0tating that the man =ould .ace arre0t
i. he did not cooBerate and Brovide identi.ication.Q3R 1n re0Bon0e" the man declared he =ould not
cooBerate <ecau0e he had not committed an- crime. 2e then turned around and =a0 arre0ted <- the
deBut-.
&hat man =a0 6arr- Dudle- 2ii<el" the Betitioner in thi0 ca0e" and the -oung =oman =a0 hi0
daughter 4imi 2ii<el. 6arr- 2ii<el =a0 charged =ith M=ill.ull- re0i0tQingR" dela-QingR" or
o<0tructQingR a Bu<lic o..icer in di0charging or attemBting to di0charge an- legal dut- o. hi0
o..ice.NQ4R 1n the Ku0tice Court .or 5nion &o=n0hiB" Nevada" 2ii<el =a0 convicted o. thi0 charge and
.ined L2%+. 2e aBBealed to the Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court" =hich a..irmed the conviction. 2e then
aBBealed to the Nevada SuBreme Court" arguing that the reAuirement that he identi.- him0el. to an-
Bolice o..icer uBon reAue0t violated the (ourth ,mendment Brohi<ition on unrea0ona<le 0earche0 and
- 105 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0eiOure0 and hi0 (i.th ,mendment Brivilege again0t 0el.'incrimination. &he Nevada SuBreme Court
reJected the0e argument0" and 2ii<el a0?ed the 5.S. SuBreme Court to hear the ca0e.
QeditR 4aJorit- oBinion
StoB'and'identi.- la=0 have their root0 in earl- Engli0h vagranc- la=0 that reAuired 0u0Bected
vagrant0 to .ace arre0t unle00 the- gave a Mgood accountN o. them0elve09 thi0 Bractice" in turn" derived
.rom the common'la= Bo=er o. an- Ber0on to arre0t 0u0Biciou0 Ber0on0 and detain them until the-
gave Ma good accountD o. them0elve0. 4odern 0toB'and'identi.- la=0 com<ine a0Bect0 o. the old
vagranc- la=0 =ith a guide .or Bolice o..icer0 conducting inve0tigator- 0toB0" 0uch a0 tho0e
authoriOed under &err- v. 3hio" 392 5.S. 1 I19*$;.
2o=ever" the Court ha0 identi.ied a con0titutional di..icult- =ith man- modern vagranc- la=0. 1n
/aBachri0tou v. Kac?0onville" 4+% 5.S. 1%* I1972;" the Court held that a traditional vagranc- la= =a0
void .or vaguene00 <ecau0e it0 M<road 0coBe and imBreci0e term0 denied BroBer notice to Botential
o..ender0 and Bermitted Bolice o..icer0 to e)erci0e un.ettered di0cretion in the en.orcement o. the
la=.N 1n Bro=n v. &e)a0" 443 5.S. 47 I1979;" the Court 0truc? do=n &e)a0P0 0toB'and'identi.- la= a0
violating the (ourth ,mendment <ecau0e it allo=ed Bolice o..icer0 to 0toB individual0 =ithout
M0Beci.ic" o<Jective .act0 e0ta<li0hing rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion to <elieve the 0u0Bect =a0 involved in
criminal activit-.N ,nd in @olender v. 6a=0on" 4*1 5.S. 3%2 I19$3;" the Court 0truc? do=n a
Cali.ornia 0toB'and'identi.- la= that reAuired a 0u0Bect to Brovide Mcredi<le and relia<le
identi.icationN uBon reAue0t.Q%R &he =ord0 Mcredi<le and relia<leN =ere vague <ecau0e the-
HBrovided no 0tandard .or determining =hat a 0u0Bect mu0t do to comBl- =ith Qthe la=R" re0ulting in
virtuall- unre0trained Bo=er to arre0t and charge Ber0on0 =ith a violation.H
- 106 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M&he Bre0ent ca0e <egin0 =here our Brior ca0e0 le.t o... 2ere there i0 no Aue0tion that the initial 0toB
=a0 <a0ed on rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion" 0ati0.-ing the (ourth ,mendment reAuirement0 noted in Bro=n.
(urther" the Betitioner ha0 not alleged that the 0tatute i0 uncon0titutionall- vague" a0 in @olender.
2ere the Nevada 0tatute i0 narro=er and Breci0e.N &he Nevada SuBreme Court had held that the
Nevada 0tatute reAuired onl- that the 0u0Bect divulge hi0 name9 Bre0uma<l-" he could do 0o =ithout
handing over an- document0 =hat0oever. ,0 long a0 the 0u0Bect tell0 the o..icer hi0 name" he ha0
0ati0.ied the dictate0 o. the Nevada 0toB'and'identi.- la=.
&he narro= reAuirement0 o. NevadaP0 0toB'and'identi.- la= meant that it did not run a.oul o. the
(ourth ,mendment. M1n the ordinar- cour0e a Bolice o..icer i0 .ree to a0? a Ber0on .or identi.ication
=ithout imBlicating the (ourth ,mendment.N Since &err-" it ha0 <een clear that a Bolice o..icer =ho
rea0ona<l- 0u0Bect0 that a Ber0on i0 involved in criminal activit- ma- detain a Ber0on long enough to
di0Bel that 0u0Bicion. Xue0tion0 related to a Ber0onP0 identit- are a Mroutine and acceBted Bart o. man-
&err- 0toB0.N @no=ing a Ber0onP0 identit- ma-" o. cour0e" helB to clear a 0u0Bect and divert the
attention o. the Bolice to another 0u0Bect. 3n the other hand" ?no=ing the 0u0BectP0 name ma- Ju0t a0
Auic?l- con.irm to the o..icer that the Ber0on i0 =anted .or another" unrelated crime. 1n ca0e0 0uch a0
thi0" =here the Bolice are inve0tigating a dome0tic di0Bute" o..icer0 Mneed to ?no= =hom the- are
dealing =ith in order to a00e00 the 0ituation" the threat to their o=n 0a.et-" and Bo00i<le danger to the
Botential victim.N M&he reAue0t .or identit- ha0 an immediate relation to the BurBo0e" rationale" and
Bractical demand0 o. a &err- 0toB. &he threat o. criminal 0anction helB0 en0ure that the reAue0t .or
identit- doe0 not <ecome a legal nullit-.N Balancing the intru0ion into the individualP0 Brivac- again0t
the e)tent to =hich the 0toB'and'identi.- la= Bromote0 legitimate government intere0t0" the Court
- 107 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
concluded that the (ourth ,mendment did not Brohi<it Nevada .rom ma?ing it a crime .or a Ber0on
detained under condition0 o. &err- to re.u0e to di0clo0e hi0 name to a Bolice o..icer uBon reAue0t.
(urthermore" the o..icerP0 reAue0t that 2ii<el identi.- him0el. did not imBlicate 2ii<elP0 (i.th
,mendment Brivilege again0t 0el.'incrimination. &here =a0 no Marticulated real and aBBrecia<le .ear
that Q2ii<elP0R name =ould <e u0ed to incriminate him" or that it ]=ould .urni0h a lin? in the chain o.
evidence needed to Bro0ecuteP him.N Becau0e 2ii<elP0 name =a0 not an incriminating Biece o.
evidence" he could not invo?e the (i.th ,mendment Brivilege in re.u0ing to di0clo0e it.
QeditR Di00enting oBinion0
Ku0tice Steven0 oBined that the CourtP0 Brecedent reAuired it to 0tri?e do=n NevadaP0 0toB'and'
identi.- la=. 5nder the Court>0 &err- Juri0Brudence" a 0u0Bect ha0 al=a-0 had the right to re.u0e to
an0=er Aue0tion0 But to him <- Bolice o..icer0 during a &err- 0toB. ,nd the (i.th ,mendment
Brivilege had al=a-0 attached during cu0todial interrogation0 <ecau0e in.ormation e)torted <- the
Bolice during 0uch interrogation0 i0 unavoida<l- te0timonial. 8h- el0e =ould the Bolice a0? .or a
Ber0onP0 name" i. not to determine =hether that Ber0on =a0 either =anted .or committing a crime or
directl- 0u0Bected o. committing a crimeD M&he o..icer in thi0 ca0e told Q2ii<elR that he =a0
conducting an inve0tigation and needed to 0ee 0ome identi.ication. ,0 the target o. that inve0tigation"
Q2ii<elR" in m- vie=" acted =ell =ithin hi0 right0 =hen he oBted to 0tand mute. ,ccordingl-" 1
re0Bect.ull- di00ent.N
Ku0tice Bre-er noted that Mthe Court =rote that an ]o..icer ma- a0? the Q&err-R detainee a moderate
num<er o. Aue0tion0 to determine hi0 identit- and to tr- to o<tain in.ormation con.irming or
- 108 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
di0Belling the o..icerP0 0u0Bicion0. But the detainee i0 not o<liged to re0Bond.P Ber?emer v. 4cCart-"
4*$ 5.S. 42+ I19$4; IemBha0i0 added;.... the CourtP0 0tatement in Ber?emer" =hile technicall- dicta"
i0 the ?ind o. 0trong dicta that the legal communit- t-Bicall- ta?e0 a0 a 0tatement o. the la=. ,nd that
la= ha0 remained undi0tur<ed .or more than 2+ -ear0. &here i0 no good rea0on no= to reJect thi0
generation'old 0tatement o. the la=.D
Ku0tice Bre-er al0o e)Bre00ed a M0liBBer-'0loBeN concern that the maJorit-P0 oBinion =ould lead to
allo=ing the Bolice to a0? .ollo='uB Aue0tion0" 0uch a0 =hat the Ber0onP0 licen0e num<er i0" or =here
a Ber0on live0" =ithout running a.oul o. con0titutional Brotection0.
QeditR See al0o
6i0t o. 5nited State0 SuBreme Court ca0e0" volume %42
6i0t o. 5nited State0 SuBreme Court ca0e0
StoB and 1denti.- 0tatute0
QeditR Note0
` a < 1n uBholding 2ii<elD0 conviction" the Court noted
M1n thi0 ca0e BetitionerP0 re.u0al to di0clo0e hi0 name =a0 not <a0ed on an- articulated real and
aBBrecia<le .ear that hi0 name =ould <e u0ed to incriminate him.... ,0 <e0t =e can tell" Betitioner
re.u0ed to identi.- him0el. onl- <ecau0e he thought hi0 name =a0 none o. the o..icerP0 <u0ine00.D V
%42 5.S. 177" at 19+
- 109 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
But the Court le.t oBen the Bo00i<ilit- o. di..erent circum0tance0:
MStill" a ca0e ma- ari0e =here there i0 a 0u<0tantial allegation that .urni0hing identit- at the time
o. a 0toB =ould have given the Bolice a lin? in the chain o. evidence needed to convict the individual
o. a 0eBarate o..en0e. 1n that ca0e" the court can then con0ider =hether the Brivilege aBBlie0" and" i.
the (i.th ,mendment ha0 <een violated" =hat remed- mu0t .ollo=. 8e need not re0olve tho0e
Aue0tion0 here.D V %42 5.S. 177" at 191
` See the article StoB and identi.- 0tatute0 .or a li0t o. 0tate0 =ith M0toB'and'identi.-N la=0.
` (rom the oBinion o. the Nevada SuBreme Court in 2ii<el v. Di0t. Ct." a0 =ell a0 the State o.
NevadaP0 <rie. to the SuBreme Court IBrie. .or !e0Bondent" B. 4;" the Court under0tood the 0tatute to
reAuire onl- that the 0u0Bect 0tate hi0 name or communicate it to the o..icer <- other mean0. &he
maJorit- oBinion noted that 2ii<el =a0 a0?ed to Brovide identi.ication" =hich the Court under0tood a0
a reAue0t to Broduce a driverP0 licen0e or 0ome other .orm o. =ritten identi.ication" 11 di..erent time09
ho=ever" it did not indicate that 2ii<el =a0 ever a0?ed 0imBl- to identi.- him0el.. 2ii<el did not rai0e
thi0 argument until hi0 Betition .or rehearing <- the SuBreme Court I/etition .or !ehearing" B. 1;.
` Nev. !ev. Stat. IN!S; S171.123I3; Brovide0 that:
M&he o..icer ma- detain the Ber0on Bur0uant to thi0 0ection onl- to a0certain hi0 identit- and the
0u0Biciou0 circum0tance0 0urrounding hi0 Bre0ence a<road. ,n- Ber0on 0o detained 0hall identi.-
him0el." <ut ma- not <e comBelled to an0=er another inAuir- o. an- Beace o..icer.N
- 110 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1t =a0 determined that <- re.u0ing to identi.- him0el." 2ii<el violated N!S S199.2$+" =hich 0tate0:
M, Ber0on =ho" in an- ca0e or under an- circum0tance0 not other=i0e 0Beciall- Brovided .or"
=ill.ull- re0i0t0" dela-0 or o<0truct0 a Bu<lic o..icer in di0charging or attemBting to di0charge an-
legal dut- o. hi0 o..ice 0hall <e Buni0hed ...N
` &he reAuirement o. Cali.ornia /enal Code S *47Ie; to Brovide Mcredi<le and relia<le
identi.icationN derived not .rom the 0tatutor- language <ut .rom a con0truction o. the 0tatute given <-
a Cali.ornia aBBellate ca0e" /eoBle v. Solomon I1973;" 33 Cal.,BB.3d 429. 1n 8ain=right v. Stone"
414 5.S. 21 I1973;" the 5.S. SuBreme Court had held that MQ.Ror the BurBo0e o. determining =hether
a 0tate 0tatute i0 too vague and inde.inite to con0titute valid legi0lation ]=e mu0t ta?e the 0tatute a0
though it read Breci0el- a0 the highe0t court o. the State ha0 interBreted it.P N
QeditR E)ternal lin?0
&e)t o. 2ii<el v. Si)th Kudicial Di0trict Court o. Nevada" %42 5.S. 177 I2++4; i0 availa<le .rom
State v. Cli..ord" 14 Nev. 72 234 6,!CEN7 2341 3..en0e0 and !e0Bon0i<ilit- &here.or 234 11
&a?ing 234?1* ?. /roBert- lo0t or mi0laid. Nev."1$79 &he rule that the .inder o. BroBert- 0o mar?ed
that the o=ner can <e a0certained i0 guilt- o. larcen- ,<andoned" lo0t" or mi0laid BroBert- 8e0t>0
@e- Num<er Dige0t 8e0t>0 @e- Num<er Dige0t" 6arcen- 1+ &rial Strateg- ,<andonment o. tangi<le
Ber0onal BroBert-" 2% ,m. Kur. /roo. o. (act0 2d *$% (orm0 ,..idavitVB- .inder or 0aver o. lo0t
BroBert-. ,m. Kur. 6egal (orm0 2d" ,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 1:11 !eBort <-
.inder o. lo0t BroBert-V&o Bolice or 0heri..>0 deBartment. ,m. Kur. 6egal (orm0 2d" ,<andoned"
- 111 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 1:13 ,..idavitVB- .inder o. lo0t BroBert-" ,m. Kur. /leading and
/ractice (orm0" ,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 19 /etition or aBBlicationVB- .inderV
&o e0ta<li0h title to lo0t BroBert-" ,m. Kur. /leading and /ractice (orm0" ,<andoned" 6o0t" and
5nclaimed /roBert- S 34 4o0t modern authorit- hold0 that larcen- ma- <e committed =hen a Ber0on
.ind0 and retain0 an o=ner>0 lo0t BroBert-"Q1R 0o long a0 it =a0 the .inder>0 intent to deBrive the o=ner
o. the BroBert-.Q2R &o e0ta<li0h the o..en0e o. the.t o. lo0t or mi0laid BroBert-" the 0tate mu0t Brove:
I1; that the BroBert- =a0 lo0t or mi0laid" I2; that the de.endant ?ne= or learned the o=ner>0 identit- or
learned o. a rea0ona<le method o. identi.-ing the o=ner" and ,4K5! 6,!CEN7 S %$ /age 1 %+
,m. Kur. 2d 6arcen- S %$ \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. I3; that the
de.endant .ailed to ta?e rea0ona<le mea0ure0 to return the BroBert-.Q3R 8hen one acAuire0 lo0t
BroBert- =hich he or 0he ?no=0 to have <een lo0t or mi0laid and doe0 not ta?e rea0ona<le mea0ure0
to return it to it0 o=ner" the acAuirer commit0 larcen- i. hi0 or her intent i0 to di0Bo0e o. the BroBert-
.or the acAuirer>0 o=n <ene.it or that o. another Ber0on.Q 4R &a?ing or =ithholding o. 0uch BroBert- i0
not =rong.ul unle00 the .inder .ailed to ta?e rea0ona<le mea0ure0 to return the BroBert- to it0 true
o=ner.Q%R &here i0 authorit- that there can <e no conviction .or the o..en0e o. the.t o. lo0t or mi0laid
BroBert- =ithout 0u..icient evidence that the BroBert- =a0 actuall- lo0t or mi0laid.Q*R 3ther authorit-
0tate0 that" <e.ore larcen- o. 0uch BroBert- ma- <e charged" there mu0t <e evidence that the o=ner
0till claim0 a right or intere0t in the BroBert-.Q7R /ractice :uide: 3ne =ho 0ee?0 to return lo0t BroBert-
in return .or a re=ard that he or 0he ha0 0olicited ha0 not ta?en rea0ona<le mea0ure0 to return lo0t
BroBert- and ha0 intended" <- 0ee?ing a re=ard" to di0Bo0e o. the BroBert- .or hi0 or her o=n <ene.it
and there<- commit0 larcen-.Q$R ,<andoned BroBert- i0 not the 0u<Ject o. larcen-"Q9R <ecau0e
BroBert- that ha0 <een voluntaril- a<andoned <- the o=ner <ecome0 0u<Ject to aBBroBriation <- the
.ir0t ta?er or .inder" =ho acAuire0 it a<0olutel-.Q1+R &he 4odel /enal Code Brovide0 that a Ber0on
- 112 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=ho come0 into control o. BroBert- o. another ?no=ing it to have <een lo0t" mi0laid" or delivered
under a mi0ta?e a0 to the nature or amount o. the BroBert- or the identit- o. the reciBient i0 guilt- o.
the.t i." =ith a BurBo0e to deBrive the o=ner o. it" the Ber0on .ail0 to ta?e rea0ona<le mea0ure0 to
re0tore the BroBert- to the one entitled to have it.Q11R Q(N1R 6ong v. State" 33 ,la. ,BB. 334" 33 So.
2d 3$2 I194$;9 Calhoun v. State" 191 4i00. $2" 2 So. 2d $+2 I1941;9 State v. @au.man" 31+ N.8.2d
7+9 IN.D. 19$1;9 State v. 4ac?" 31 3r. ,BB. %9" %*9 /.2d *24 I1977;9 State v. Kim" 13 3r. ,BB. 2+1"
%+$ /.2d 4*2 I1973;. ,0 to 0tra- animal0" 0ee SS %4" %%. ,0 to =hen .inder o. lo0t good0 ma- <e
guilt- o. larcen-" 0ee S $$. Q(N2R State v. 4oore" 4* N.C. ,BB. 2%9" 2*4 S.E.2d $99 I19$+;. Q(N3R
State v. Smith" 27* 4ont. 434" 91* /.2d 773 I199*;. Q(N4R /eoBle v. Dadon" 1*7 4i0c. 2d *2$" *4+
N.7.S.2d 42% ICit- Crim. Ct. 199*;. Q(N%R State v. Evan0" 119 1daho 3$3" $+7 /.2d *2 ICt. ,BB.
1991;. Q(N*R State v. 4ac?" 31 3r. ,BB. %9" %*9 /.2d *24 I1977;. ,4K5! 6,!CEN7 S %$ /age 2
%+ ,m. Kur. 2d 6arcen- S %$ \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. (loral
de0ign0 Blaced uBon a grave are o. value to their donor0 0o long a0 the- remain in a condition to 0erve
the intended BurBo0e" <ut =hen the- have =ithered and died the- cea0e to <e the 0u<Ject o. larcen-.
Bu0ler v. State" 1$1 &enn. *7%" 1$4 S.8.2d 24 I1944;. Q(N7R Shedd v. State" 3%+ So. 2d 1+$% I(la.
Di0t. Ct. ,BB. 10t Di0t. 1977;. Q(N$R /eoBle v. Dadon" 1*7 4i0c. 2d *2$" *4+ N.7.S.2d 42% ICit-
Crim. Ct. 199*;. Q(N9R 4ori00ette v. 5.S." 342 5.S. 24*" 72 S. Ct. 24+" 9* 6. Ed. 2$$ I19%2;9 Com.
v. 8etmore" 3+1 /a. SuBer. 37+" 447 ,.2d 1+12 I19$2;. Q(N1+R ,m. Kur. 2d" ,<andoned" 6o0t" and
5nclaimed /roBert- S 27. Q(N11R 4odel /enal Code S 223.%. \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. 33'34B \
2+11 &hom0on !euter0C!1,. No Claim to 3rig. 5.S. :ovt. 8or?0. ,ll right0 re0erved. ,4K5!
6,!CEN7 S %$ END 3( D3C54EN& ,4K5! 6,!CEN7 S %$ /age 3 %+ ,m. Kur. 2d 6arcen- S
%$ \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. ,merican Kuri0Brudence" Second
Edition Data<a0e uBdated ,ugu0t 2+11 ,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- ,nne 4. /a-ne"
- 113 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K.D. 11. !ight0 and 3<ligation0 o. (inder0" 3=ner0 and (ormer 3=ner0 D. 4i0laid /roBert- &oBic
Summar- Correlation &a<le !e.erence0 S 37. (inder0V3=ner or occuBant o. Bremi0e0 =here
BroBert- .ound 8e0t>0 @e- Num<er Dige0t 8e0t>0 @e- Num<er Dige0t" ,<andoned and 6o0t
/roBert- 1+ to 13 ,.6.!. 6i<rar- 6ia<ilit- .or lo00 o. hat" coat" or other BroBert- deBo0ited <-
cu0tomer in Blace o. <u0ine00" %4 ,.6.!.%th 393 &he right o. Bo00e00ion" a0 again0t all e)ceBt the true
o=ner" i0 in the o=ner or occuBant o. the Bremi0e0 =here the BroBert- i0 di0covered"Q1R .or mi0laid
BroBert- i0 Bre0umed to have <een le.t in the cu0tod- o. the o=ner or occuBier o. the Bremi0e0 uBon
=hich it i0 .ound.Q2R 8hen the o=ner o. Bremi0e0 ta?e0 Bo00e00ion o. mi0laid Ber0onal BroBert- le.t
<- an invitee" he or 0he <ecome0 a gratuitou0 <ailee <- oBeration o. la=" =ith a dut- to u0e ordinar-
care to return it to the o=ner.Q3R 8here a tenant .ind0 mi0laid BroBert- in the <a0ement o. hi0 or her
aBartment" =hich include0 the <a0ement" the tenant" not the landlord" i0 entitled to the BroBert-" a0 the
Ber0on in Bo00e00ion o. the Bremi0e0.Q4R &he rule that the o=ner o. the Bremi0e0 =here mi0laid
BroBert- i0 .ound ha0 right0 to Bo00e00ion 0uBerior to tho0e o. the .inder" ma-" ho=ever" <e changed
<- 0tatute and" thu0" thi0 di0tinction <et=een lo0t and mi0laid BroBert- ma- <e a<oli0hed.Q%R ,0
again0t ever-one <ut the true o=ner o. the mi0laid BroBert-" the o=ner o. 0uch Bremi0e0 i0 a<0olutel-
lia<le .or a mi0deliver-.Q*R Q(N1R &err- v. 6oc?" 343 ,r?. 4%2" 37 S.8.3d 2+2 I2++1;9 CamB<ell v.
Cochran" 41* ,.2d 211 IDel. SuBer. Ct. 19$+; Ithe o=ner o. the Bremi0e0 i0 entitled to the BroBert-;9
State v. :reen" 4%* So. 2d 13+9 I(la. Di0t. Ct. ,BB. 3d Di0t. 19$4;9 Corli00 v. 8enner" ,4K5!
,B,ND S 37 /age 1 1 ,m. Kur. 2d ,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 37 \ 2+11
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 13* 1daho 417" 34 /.3d 11++ ICt. ,BB. 2++1;9
BenJamin v. 6indner ,viation" 1nc." %34 N.8.2d 4++ I1o=a 199%;9 @im<rough v. :iant (ood 1nc." 2*
4d. ,BB. *4+" 339 ,.2d *$$ I197%; Ithe o=ner o. the Bremi0e0 i0 entitled to the BroBert-;9 !a- v.
(lo=er 2o0B." 1 3hio ,BB. 3d 127" 439 N.E.2d 942 I*th Di0t. 6uca0 Count- 19$1;9 4organ v. 8i0er"
- 114 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
711 S.8.2d 22+" *1 ,.6.!.4th 1173 I&enn. Ct. ,BB. 19$%;. Q(N2R Schle- v. Couch" 1%% &e). 19%"
2$4 S.8.2d 333 I19%%;. Q(N3R 4ic?e- v. Sear0" !oe<uc? G Co." 19* 4d. 32*" 7* ,.2d 3%+ I19%+;9
@im<rough v. :iant (ood 1nc." 2* 4d. ,BB. *4+" 339 ,.2d *$$ I197%;. Q(N4R !o.rano v. Du..-" 291
(.2d $4$ I2d Cir. 19*1;. Q(N%R !o.rano v. Du..-" 291 (.2d $4$ I2d Cir. 19*1; Ide.ining lo0t BroBert-
a0 including <oth mi0laid and lo0t BroBert-" and giving the .inder" =ith certain e)ceBtion0" entitlement
to it a0 again0t the Ber0on in Bo00e00ion o. the Bremi0e0 =here it i0 .ound;. ,0 to lo0t'BroBert-
0tatute0" 0ee S 31. ,0 to 0tatute0 =hich determine the right0 to BroBert- =ithout re.erence to 0tatu0"
0ee S 2+. Q(N*R Dolit0?- v. Dollar Saving0 Ban?" 2+3 4i0c. 2*2" 11$ N.7.S.2d *% I4un. Ct. 19%2;.
\ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. 33'34B \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0C!1,. No Claim to 3rig. 5.S. :ovt.
8or?0. ,ll right0 re0erved. ,4K5! ,B,ND S 37 END 3( D3C54EN& ,4K5! ,B,ND S 37
/age 2 1 ,m. Kur. 2d ,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 37 \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No
Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. ,merican Kuri0Brudence" Second Edition Data<a0e uBdated ,ugu0t
2+11 ,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- ,nne 4. /a-ne" K.D. 11. !ight0 and 3<ligation0 o.
(inder0" 3=ner0 and (ormer 3=ner0 D. 4i0laid /roBert- &oBic Summar- Correlation &a<le
!e.erence0 S 3*. (inder0 8e0t>0 @e- Num<er Dige0t 8e0t>0 @e- Num<er Dige0t" ,<andoned and
6o0t /roBert- 1+ to 13 , .inder o. mi0laid BroBert- acAuire0 no o=ner0hiB right0 in it"Q1R and" =here
0uch BroBert- i0 .ound uBon another>0 Bremi0e0" the .inder ha0 no right to it0 Bo00e00ion"Q2R <ut i0
reAuired to turn it over to the o=ner o. the Bremi0e0.Q3R &hi0 i0 true =hether the .inder i0 an emBlo-ee
or occuBier o. the Bremi0e0 on =hich the mi0laid article i0 .oundQ4R or a cu0tomer o. the o=ner or
occuBant.Q%R &he holder o. mi0laid BroBert- i0 a gratuitou0 <ailee .or the o=ner" and i0 reAuired to
hold the BroBert- inde.initel-.Q*R 1. the .inder o. mi0laid BroBert- i0 the emBlo-ee o. another" and he
or 0he .ind0 it in hi0 or her 0tatu0 a0 an emBlo-ee" then the right o. cu0tod- o. the BroBert- i0 in the
emBlo-er and not in the emBlo-ee or agent =ho recover0 it0 Bh-0ical Bo00e00ion.Q7R Q(N1R (avorite v.
- 115 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4iller" 17* Conn. 31+" 4+7 ,.2d 974 I197$;9 2endle v. Steven0" 224 1ll. ,BB. 3d 1+4*" 1** 1ll. Dec.
$*$" %$* N.E.2d $2* I2d Di0t. 1992;. Q(N2R (la) v. 4onticello !ealt- Co." 1$% #a. 474" 39 S.E.2d
3+$ I194*;. Q(N3R CamB<ell v. Cochran" 41* ,.2d 211 IDel. SuBer.
Ct. 19$+;. Q(N4R 4cDonald v. !ail=a- E)B. ,genc-" $9 :a. ,BB. $$4" $1 S.E.2d %2% I19%4;9
Schle- v. Couch" 1%% &e). 19%" 2$4 S.8.2d 333 I19%%;. Q(N%R (oul?e v. Ne= 7or? Con0ol. !. Co."
22$ N.7. 2*9" 127 N.E. 237" 9 ,.6.!. 13$4 I192+;. ,4K5! ,B,ND S 3* /age 1 1 ,m. Kur. 2d
,<andoned" 6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 3* \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S
:ov. 8or?0. Q(N*R Dolit0?- v. Dollar Saving0 Ban?" 2+3 4i0c. 2*2" 11$ N.7.S.2d *% I4un. Ct.
19%2;. Q(N7R 4cDonald v. !ail=a- E)B. ,genc-" $9 :a. ,BB. $$4" $1 S.E.2d %2% I19%4;9 Denni0 v.
North=e0tern Nat. Ban?" 249 4inn. 13+" $1 N.8.2d 2%4 I19%7;. \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. 33'34B
\ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0C!1,. No Claim to 3rig. 5.S. :ovt. 8or?0. ,ll right0 re0erved. ,4K5!
,B,ND S 3* END 3( D3C54EN& ,4K5! ,B,ND S 3* /age 2 1 ,m. Kur. 2d ,<andoned"
6o0t" and 5nclaimed /roBert- S 3* \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0.
,merican Kuri0Brudence /roo. o. (act0 2d Data<a0e uBdated Kul- 2+1+ Categorical 6i0t o. ,rticle0
,<andonment o. &angi<le /er0onal /roBert-Q^R !u00ell 6. 8ald" 66.B.Q^^R Correction: &he Bortion
o. the running head0 on Bage0 *$* to 724 that read0 H2%'*71H i0 an error. &he correct re.erence i0: 2%'
*$%. &,B6E 3( C3N&EN&S ,rticle 3utline ScoBe 1nde) !e0earch !e.erence0 &oBic o. ,rticle:
8hether tangi<le Ber0onal BroBert- =a0 a<andoned <- it0 o=ner" thu0 entitling the .inder to
o=ner0hiB o. it a0 again0t the .ormer o=ner. &hi0 .act Aue0tion ma- ari0e in an- action in =hich title
to and right o. Bo00e00ion o. Ber0onal BroBert- i0 in i00ue. ,!&1C6E 35&61NE 1 Bac?ground S 1
1ntroduction9 0coBe S 2 De.inition0 and di0tinction0V,<andoned BroBert- S 3 De.inition0 and
di0tinction0V6o0t and mi0laid BroBert-9 trea0ure trove and BroBert- em<edded in earth S 4 8hat
con0titute0 a<andonment" generall-9 Bre0umBtion0 and <urden o. Broo. S % 8hat con0titute0
- 116 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a<andonment" generall-9 Bre0umBtion0 and <urden o. Broo.V1ntent to a<andon9 Barticular act0 and
omi00ion0 S %.% 5ni.orm ,ct0 11 /roo. o. ,<andonment o. &angi<le /er0onal /roBert- , Element0 o.
/roo. S * :uide and chec?li0t B &e0timon- o. /lainti.. 1 Direct E)amination S 7 /reviou0 o=ner0hiB
o. BroBert- <- Ber0on a<andoning it 2% ,4K5! /3( 2d *$% /age 1 2% ,m. Kur. /roo. o. (act0 2d
*$% I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 19$1; \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. S $
Nature o. BroBert- 2 Cro00'e)amination S 9 #oluntar- relinAui0hment o. Bo00e00ion S 1+ 6aB0e o.
time S 11 Nonu0e o. BroBert-9 .ailure to reclaim BroBert- S 12 Character o. Blace =here BroBert- =a0
le.t C &e0timon- o. De.endant S 13 Bac?ground S 14 /reviou0 o=ner0hiB o. BroBert- <- Ber0on
a<andoning it S 1% Character o. Blace =here BroBert- =a0 le.t S 1* #oluntar- relinAui0hment o.
Bo00e00ion S 17 Demand to reclaim BroBert- S 1$ (ailure to reclaim BroBert- S 19 6aB0e o. time S 2+
,BBroBriation o. BroBert- .ollo=ing a<andonment S 21 Condition o. BroBert-9 deterioration in value
D &e0timon- o. 8itne00 Corro<orating 1ntent o. 3=ner to ,<andon /roBert- S 22 /reviou0
o=ner0hiB o. BroBert- <- Ber0on a<andoning it S 23 Declaration o. intent to a<andon !e0earch
!e.erence0 &oBic o. ,rticle: 8hether tangi<le Ber0onal BroBert- =a0 a<andoned <- it0 o=ner" thu0
entitling the .inder to o=ner0hiB o. it a0 again0t the .ormer o=ner. &hi0 .act Aue0tion ma- ari0e in an-
a
S 1+. Bri<er- 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0 in =hich the de.endant0 =ere convicted o. <ri<er-" it =a0 held
that their claim0 o. di0criminator- Bro0ecution =ere =ithout merit. 1n Common=ealth v Bene.icial
(inance Co. I1971; 3*+ 4a00 1$$" 27% NE2d 33" %2 ,6!3d 1143" cert den 4+7 5S 91+" 32 6 Ed 2d
*$3" 92 S Ct 2433 and cert den 4+7 5S 91+" 32 6 Ed 2d *$3" 92 S Ct 243% and cert den 4+7 5S 91+"
32 6 Ed 2d *$3" 92 S Ct 244$ and cert den 4+7 5S 914" 32 6 Ed 2d *$9" 92 S Ct 2433 and cert den
4+7 5S 914" 32 6 Ed 2d *$9" 92 S Ct 2434" the court reJected de.endant>0 contention that he =a0 the
victim o. 0elective Bro0ecution in violation o. the eAual Brotection clau0e. De.endant" a Bu<lic o..icial
- 117 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
convicted o. receiving a <ri<e" o..ered to Brove that not all o..icial0 ?no=n to have received <ri<e0
=ere indicted" and that variou0 mem<er0 o. the 4a00achu0ett0 Crime Commi00ion had 0tated that
the- =ere intere0ted in getting de.endant. &he court held that 0uch Broo. =ould <e in0u..icient to
0uBBort a claim o. 0elective en.orcement" =hich reAuire0 a 0ho=ing o. 0ome ar<itrar- cla00i.ication"
0uch a0 race or religion" uBon =hich Bro0ecution0 are <eing <a0ed. &he court 0aid that mere .ailure to
Buni0h other o..ender0 <- it0el. =a0 no <a0i0 .or holding that there =a0 a denial o. eAual Brotection.
1ndeed" 0aid the court" it ma- <e altogether aBBroBriate to Bic? out .rom a grouB one or more
o..ender0 =ho0e conduct or Bo0ition i0 0uch that a 0tri?ing e)amBle o. them can <e made in the
e)Bectation that general comBliance =ill .ollo=. &he court 0aid that de.endant" a0 the BrinciBal Bu<lic
.igure involved in a ca0e <e.ore the court" certainl- had no 0tanding to comBlain o. hi0 indictment
under that 0tandard" e0Beciall- 0ince he =a0 not the onl- Bu<lic o..icial again0t =hom indictment0
=ere returned. 1n State v Savoie I1974; 12$ NK SuBer 329" 32+ ,2d 1*4" revd on other ground0 *7
NK 439" 341 ,2d %9$" the court held to <e =ithout merit de.endant>0 contention that the trial court
erred in den-ing hi0 Bretrial motion to di0mi00 the indictment on the ground that the 0tate had
uncon0titutionall- engaged in di0criminator- 0elective Bro0ecution o. de.endant. De.endant" a
<uilding in0Bector" =a0 convicted o. corruBtl- engaging in mi0conduct in hi0 Bu<lic o..ice <-
receiving a 0um o. mone-" allegedl- a0 a Chri0tma0 gratuit-" .rom a <uilder in connection =ith the
in0Bection o. home0 <eing con0tructed. &he Broo. o..ered <- de.endant 0ho=ed that among the
reciBient0 o. Chri0tma0 gratuitie0" Bro0ecution0 =ere initiated onl- again0t t=o o..icial0 =ho received
gi.t0 in e)ce00 o. L1++. &he court 0aid that that did not 0ati0.- the reAuirement o. 0ho=ing that the
0election =a0 <a0ed on 0ome unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard9 0electivit- in en.orcement <- it0el." a<0ent a
0ho=ing o. invidiou0 and ar<itrar- cla00i.ication" did not con0titute a violation o. con0titutional eAual
Brotection right0. S 11. Drug and alcohol o..en0e0 QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0 in
- 118 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=hich the de.endant0 =ere .ound guilt- o. violation o. la=0 governing the u0e o. alcohol" narcotic0"
and other drug0" the court0 held that the de.en0e o. di0criminator- Bro0ecution had not <een
e0ta<li0hed <- the de.endant0. /lainti..0" arre0ted .or Bo00e00ion o. mariJuana =hile attemBting to
enter a Bu<lic coli' 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age *+ 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 0eum" 0ought to enJoin the en.orcement o. the
drug la=0" in 8heaton v 2agan I1977" 4D NC; 43% ( SuBB 1134. /lainti..0 a00erted that the
coli0eum>0 o..icial Bolic- o. arre0ting Bo00e00or0 o. 0mall amount0 o. mariJuana =hile not arre0ting
Bo00e00or0 o. alcoholic <everage0 violated the due Broce00 and eAual Brotection clau0e0 o. the
(ourteenth ,mendment. 1n holding that the di0tinction made <- la= en.orcement o..icial0 at the
coli0eum did not ri0e to the level o. di0criminator- or 0elective en.orcement o. the la= that i0
Brohi<ited" the court held that the Blainti..0 did not Brove the- =ere treated di..erentl- than Ber0on0
0imilarl- 0ituated 0ince Ber0on0 violating di0tinct" 0eBarate 0tatute0 are not 0o 0imilarl- 0ituated.
(urthermore" the court 0aid that a00uming that a 0ingle cla00 o. violator0 might <e de.ined that
include0 Ber0on0 =ho are .ound to Bo00e00 either mariJuana or alcoholic <everage" the Blainti..0 could
not Brevail 0ince there =a0 no evidence to 0uBBort a .inding that an- 0elective en.orcement =a0 <a0ed
uBon 0ome con0titutionall- imBermi00i<le ground 0uch a0 race" religion" or the e)erci0e o. the (ir0t
,mendment right to .ree 0Beech. , Di0trict Court determination that 3?lahoma>0 liAuor la=0 =ere
di0criminatoril- aBBlied =a0 rever0ed <- the court in National !ailroad /a00enger CorB. v 2arri0
I1974" C,1+ 3?la; 49+ (2d %72. &he evidence <e.ore the Di0trict Court 0ho=ed that the alcohol
<everage control <oard had meticulou0l- en.orced the Brovi0ion0 o. the la= =ith re.erence to the 0ale
o. liAuor <- licen0ed Bac?age 0tore0 <ut had made it0 inve0tigation0 o. Blace0 0elling liAuor <- the
drin? at the reAue0t o. other la= en.orcement agencie0 onl-. &he Di0trict Court 0aid that the <oard>0
e..ort0 to en.orce tho0e Brovi0ion0 o. the la= had <een 0Boradic and nonuni.orm and that no good'
- 119 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.aith e..ort =a0 made to en.orce the Brovi0ion uni.orml-. 1n rever0ing the Di0trict Court>0
determination" the Court o. ,BBeal0 0aid that Blainti.. did not have an- evidence =ith re.erence to it0
di0crimination claim. 3n the contrar-" 0aid the court" the record 0ho=ed that the Bro0ecution =a0
initiated <- a teleBhone call .rom a ne=0BaBer reBorter to the alcohol <everage control <oard"
advi0ing that ,mtra? =a0 0elling liAuor <- the drin? on it0 train0. (urthermore" the court 0aid that the
record di0clo0ed that there =ere in that count- alone" aBBro)imatel- 34 Bro0ecution0 in0tituted during
the 9'month Beriod immediatel- Breceding the .iling o. the in0tant 0uit. 1n Belgarde v State I197%"
,la0?a; %43 /2d 2+*" the de.endant a00erted that the aBBlication o. the mariJuana la=0 in ,la0?a
re0ulted in invidiou0 di0crimination again0t -oung Ber0on0. !e.erring to 0tati0tic0 =hich indicated that
t=o'third0 o. the Ber0on0 charged =ith the Bo00e00ion o. mariJuana =ere =ithin the age0 o. 1$ and 21"
the de.endant argued that the data 0ho=ed a di0criminator- aBBlication o. a la= neutral on it0 .ace"
thu0 demon0trating a violation o. the eAual Brotection clau0e o. the 5nited State0 Con0titution.
2o=ever" the court 0aid that it had not <een 0ho=n that en.orcement o. the 0tatute =a0 conducted in
0uch a =a- a0 to BurBo0el- 0ingle out -oung Ber0on0 a0 the target0 o. en.orcement =hile ignoring
violation0 <- other0. &he court 0aid that the mere 0ho=ing that man- -oung Ber0on0 =ere 0u<Jected to
Bro0ecution did not Brove de.endant>0 the0i0 0ince the mo0t o<viou0 e)Blanation .or the 0tati0ticall-
large Bercentage o. -oung Ber0on0 <eing the o<Ject o. mariJuana la= en.orcement =a0 that mariJuana
u0e occur0 =ith greater .reAuenc- among the -oung than among tho0e o. older -ear0. &he court held
that a ca0e o. uncon0titutional" invidiou0 di0crimination had not <een made out <- de.endant. 1n
5nited State0 v Smith I197*" Di0t Col ,BB; 3%4 ,2d %1+" the court 0et a0ide the trial court>0 order
di0mi00ing Bo00e00ion o. mariJuana charge0 again0t de.endant. See?ing to comBel the government to
Bre0ent te0timon- a0 to =h- he =a0 not <eing granted .ir0t'o..ender treat' 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age *1
9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S
- 120 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
:ov. 8or?0. ment" de.endant .iled a motion 0tating that he reAue0ted 0uch treatment <ut =a0
in.ormed that it =a0 Bolic- to den- it to de.endant0 =ho had litigated an- i00ue0 in their ca0e" a0 had
de.endant. De.endant a00erted that 0uch a Bolic- had an uncon0titutionall- di0criminator- e..ect uBon
individual0 =ho cho0e to e)erci0e their legal right0. 3n aBBeal o. di0mi00al o. the charge0" the court
0aid that it had no Auarrel =ith the trial court>0 ruling that a Bolic- intended to deter de.endant0 .rom
e)erci0ing their legal right0 cannot <e tolerated. 2o=ever" the court held that de.endant had not made
an adeAuate 0ho=ing that the Bolic- o. the government had 0uch e..ect. Noting that i. a de.endant
0ucce00.ull- comBleted the .ir0t o..ender treatment Brogram" charge0 =ere droBBed again0t him" the
court 0aid that the <ene.iciar- o. 0uch a di0Bo0ition could 0carcel- <e 0aid to have <een deterred .rom
e)erci0ing hi0 right to de.end him0el." .or" <- di0mi00ing 0uch charge0" the government had done
a=a- =ith an- rea0on .or him to do 0o. &he court 0aid that 0hould the Bro0ecutor den- .ir0t'o..ender
treatment to a de.endant" the latter i0 in no =a- <arred .rom then invo?ing hi0 legal right0 and
de.en0e0. 1n a..irming de.endant>0 conviction .or unla=.ull- Bo00e00ing alcoholic <everage0" the court
in Cone v State I1937; 1$4 :a 31*" 191 SE 2%+" held that the trial court did not err in 0tri?ing
de.endant>0 0Becial Blea alleging that the la= en.orcement o..icial0 did not imBartiall- en.orce the
Brohi<ition la=0" <ut Broceeded onl- again0t Ber0on0 to=ard =hom the- =ere BreJudiced. De.endant
alleged that =hile it =a0 generall- ?no=n that there =ere man- BeoBle violating the Brohi<ition la="
and that the o..icer0 ?ne= tho0e Bartie0 and ?ne= the- =ere violating the la=" the- did not arre0t
them <ut onl- Bic?ed out a .e= o. the Boorer citiOen0 and Baid no attention to the =ealthier cla00e0 or
tho0e =ho had BroBert- and =ere higher uB in li.e. 1n 0u0taining the 0tri?ing o. de.endant>0 Blea" the
court 0aid that the .act that other Ber0on0 or cla00e0 o. Ber0on0 ma- have violated the la= =ithout
<eing Bro0ecuted there.or =a0 no e)cu0e .or a violation <- de.endant. 1n Schmidt v 1ndianaBoli0
- 121 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I19+7; 1*$ 1nd *31" $+ NE *32" in =hich de.endant aBBealed .rom hi0 conviction .or violating an
ordinance =hich Brohi<ited the maintenance" =ithout a licen0e" o. a deBot or agenc-
o. a <re=er-" de.endant contended that other Ber0on0 =ithin the cit- =ere engaged in <u-ing <eer
.rom <re=erie0 and 0elling the 0ame in a li?e manner a0 de.endant9 that the o<Ject o. the ordinance
=a0 to oBBre00 and di0criminate again0t <u0ine00e0 o. <re=erie0 located out0ide the cit-9 and that the
0ame =a0 0o en.orced a0 to .avor the <u0ine00 o. <re=erie0 located =ithin the cit- o. 1ndianaBoli0.
2o=ever" the court 0aid that the charge that the ordinance at a given time =a0 un.airl- en.orced =a0
too general to Bre0ent an- Aue0tion0. &he court 0aid that no .act0 =ere alleged uBon =hich to re0t the
conclu0ion that the ordinance =a0 0o en.orced a0 to .avor the <u0ine00 o. <re=erie0 located =ithin the
cit-. 8ithout intimating that the validit- o. a Benal ordinance might <e a00ailed on the ground o.
Bartialit- in it0 en.orcement" the court held that" in the a<0ence o. .act0 Bleaded 0ho=ing a .i)ed and
continuou0 Bolic- o. unJu0t di0crimination on the Bart o. the municiBalit-" it =ould not enter uBon a
con0ideration o. the Aue0tion 0ugge0ted. 1n State v ,Bt I197*" 1o=a; 244 N82d $+1" de.endant
contended that the Bro0ecutor 0hould not <e Bermitted to Bro0ecute him .or Bo00e00ion and deliver- o.
a controlled 0u<0tance =ithout al0o Bro0ecuting a Bolice in.ormer =ho al0o Bo00e00ed the drug0.
Stating that the con0ciou0 e)erci0e o. 0ome 0electivit- in en.orcement i0 not in it0el. a .ederal
con0titutional violation" the court 0aid it =a0 not 0tated that 0election =a0 deli<eratel- <a0ed uBon an
unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard" and there.ore held that it .ound no eAual Brotection violation. 1n State v
Kourdain I19%4; 22% 6a 1+3+" 74 So 2d 2+3" the de.endant aBBealed .rom hi0 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age
*2 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; conviction .or Bo00e00ion o. mariJuana"
contending that the manner in =hich the narcotic la= =a0 <eing admini0tered <- the di0trict attorne-
deBrived him o. eAual Brotection o. the la=" in that de.endant>0 in.raction =a0 <eing activel-
Bro0ecuted =herea0 the Bro0ecuting o..icial0 had re.rained
- 122 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.rom Bro0ecuting other" more 0eriou0 violation0 o. the narcotic act. !eJecting that claim a0 untena<le"
the court 0aid that it =a0 de.endant>0 contention that the .ailure o. the Bro0ecuting o..icial0 to o..er
de.endant immunit-" i. he =ould <ecome an in.ormer" oBerated a0 a BurBo0e.ul di0crimination again0t
him and thu0 denied him eAual Brotection o. the la=. 2o=ever" 0tating that the .act that not ever- la=
violator had <een Bro0ecuted =a0 o. no concern to de.endant in the a<0ence o. an allegation that he
=a0 a mem<er o. a cla00 <eing Bro0ecuted 0olel- <ecau0e o. race" religion" color" or the li?e" or that
he =a0 the onl- Ber0on =ho had <een Bro0ecuted under the 0tatute" the court 0aid that =ithout 0uch
charge0" de.endant>0 claim did not come =ithin the cla00 o. uncon0titutional di0crimination.
De.endant>0 contention that he =a0 di0criminated again0t <- la= en.orcement o..icial0 in the
aBBlication o. the 0tate alcohol Brohi<ition la= =a0 reJected on aBBeal <- the court in State v 8ood
I19**" 4i00; 1$7 So 2d $2+. De.endant urged that <ecau0e in certain countie0 the la= =a0 not
en.orced <- local la= en.orcement o..icial0" he =a0 <eing denied hi0 con0titutional right o. eAual
Brotection o. la= .or the rea0on that there e)i0ted a deli<erate or intentional Battern or 0-0tematic Blan
o. not uni.orml- en.orcing the la=. 2o=ever" =hile conceding that 0heri..0 and Bolice o..icial0 =ere
en.orcement o..icer0 o. the 0tate" the court 0aid that it did not .ollo= that the 0tate had control and
direction over tho0e o..icer0" and that a0 a matter o. .act the oBBo0ite =a0 true" thu0 Bartiall-
e)Blaining =h- la= en.orcement had <een la) in certain countie0. Noting that the record 0ho=ed that
the 0heri.. =ho arre0ted de.endant had demon0trated unu0ual e..ort to en.orce the la=
indi0criminatel- and had <een 0ucce00.ul in 0o doing" the court 0aid that the .act that the 0heri.. made
no attemBt to en.orce the liAuor la=0 in0ide the corBorate limit0 o. a cit- =ithin the count- did not
amount to deli<erate" BurBo0e.ul di0crimination 0ince the 0heri.. te0ti.ied that there =a0 an agreement
to the e..ect that he =ould en.orce the la=0 in the count- and leave cit- la= en.orcement to the cit-
Bolice. &he court concluded that the element o. BurBo0e.ul or intentional di0crimination" =hich
- 123 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
de.endant had to 0ho= in order to Bermit him to Ju0tl- a00ert that he had <een denied eAual Brotection
o. the la=0" =a0 lac?ing. 1n Cairn0 v Sheri.." Clar? Count- I1973; $9 Nev 113" %+$ /2d 1+1%"
de.endant" charged =ith the 0ale o. narcotic0" 0ought Bretrial ha<ea0 relie. alleging a violation o. hi0
con0titutional right0 <ecau0e o. the Bolic- o. the la= en.orcement o..icer0 in granting immunit- .rom
Bro0ecution to tho0e arre0ted .or narcotic0 violation0 =ho later <ecame in.ormer0. De.endant
contended that the o..er o. immunit- conditioned on <ecoming an in.ormant oBerated a0 a BurBo0e.ul
di0crimination again0t him. &he court 0aid that even i. it conceded that the 0tate had .ailed to
Bro0ecute la= violater0 =ho had agreed to <ecome in.ormer0" that did not con0titute an unla=.ul
admini0tration o. the 0tatute or evidence o. intentional or BurBo0e.ul di0crimination again0t
de.endant. &he .act that not ever- la= violater ha0 <een Bro0ecuted i0 o. no concern to de.endant" 0aid
the court" in the a<0ence o. an allegation and Broo. that he i0 a mem<er o. a cla00 <eing Bro0ecuted
0olel- <ecau0e o. race" religion" color" or the li?e" or that he i0 the onl- Ber0on =ho ha0 <een
Bro0ecuted under the 0tatute. De.endant" charged =ith the criminal 0ale o. a controlled 0u<0tance"
contended in /eoBle v !o0enthal I1977; 91 4i0c 2d 7%+" 39$ N7S2d *39" that he had <een
0electivel- Bro0ecuted. ,lthough .inding de.endant not guilt- on other ground0" the court held that
de.endant>0 claim 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age *3 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. that he had <een 0electivel- Bro0ecuted =a0
=ithout merit 0ince the record <e.ore the court =a0 <arren o. an- evidence that de.endant had <een
denied eAual Brotection o. the la= <ecau0e o. a Bo00i<le di0criminator- en.orcement o. the Benal la=
0ection under =hich de.endant =a0 charged. &he court 0aid that in order .or de.endant to have
Brevailed" he =ould have had to have 0ho=n that there =a0 invidiou0 or <ad'.aith 0election o. him a0
a target. 1n Common=ealth v Butch I197$" /a SuBer; 39+ ,2d $+3" the court reJected the contention
o. a de.endant that he =a0 uncon0titutionall- di0criminated again0t =hen he =a0 charged =ith the
- 124 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
more 0eriou0 crime o. deliver- o. mariJuana rather than Bo00e00ion o. mariJuana =hen he did not co'
oBerate in leading the Bolice to other drug 0ource0. Stating that the con0ciou0 e)erci0e o. 0ome
0electivit- in en.orcement i0 not in it0el. a .ederal con0titutional violation unle00 the 0election =a0
deli<eratel- <a0ed uBon an unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard" the court 0aid that even i. it =ere to a00ume that the
de.endant>0 deBiction o. the circum0tance0 =a0 comBletel- accurate" the Brocedure de0cri<ed =a0 in
no =a- unrea0ona<le" ar<itrar-" or un.airl- di0criminator-. 1n State v Boutch I1973; *+ 8i0 2d 397"
21+ N82d 7%1" the court reJected the contention o. the de.endant" =ho =a0 convicted o. aiding and
a<etting the 0ale o. a dangerou0 drug" that he =a0 the victim o. unJu0t di0crimination. De.endant
claimed that 0uch di0crimination re0ulted .rom the granting o. tran0actional immunit- <- the trial
court to the 0eller o. the dangerou0 drug" in order to in0ure her te0timon- again0t de.endant.
De.endant claimed that the o..er o. immunit- .rom the 0tate .or te0timon- <- one involved in a
criminal tran0action again0t another individual involved in the 0ame tran0action deBrived that
individual o. eAual Brotection o. the la=0" a0 an e)erci0e in invidiou0 di0crimination. 2o=ever" the
court 0aid that in the a<0ence o. an allegation and Broo. that de.endant i0 a mem<er o. a cla00 <eing
Bro0ecuted 0olel- <ecau0e o. race" religion" color" or other ar<itrar- cla00i.ication" or that he i0 the
onl- Ber0on =ho ha0 <een Bro0ecuted under the 0tatute" de.endant>0 claim did not come =ithin the
cla00 o. uncon0titutional di0criminator- en.orcement. C5456,&1#E S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: State
Bolice trooBer .ailed to 0ho= that Bolice engaged in 0elective en.orcement o. la=" in violation o. hi0
eAual Brotection right0" <- vigorou0l- inve0tigating circum0tance0 0urrounding hi0 Bre0ence in 0tate
vehicle" Bar?ed <- 0ide o. road during morning hour0" =hile Bo00i<l- into)icated" =hen no 0ho=ing
=a0 made o. ho= 0imilarl- 0ituated mem<er0 o. Bu<lic =ere treated. 5.S. Con0t. ,mend. 14. Die0el
v. &o=n o. 6e=i0<oro" 232 (.3d 92 I2d Cir. 2+++;. Claim <- aBBellant convicted o. 0elling cocaine"
that he 0u..ered di0criminator- Bro0ecution <a0ed on te0timon- o. inve0tigator that arre0tee0 =ere
- 125 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
routinel- o..ered oBBortunit- to cooBerate =ith narcotic ta0? .orce in e)change .or 0ome t-Be o.
recommendation regarding charge0 again0t them" =a0 BroBerl- reJected a0 .ailing to 0ho= <a0i0 .or
relie." =here aBBellant did not demon0trate that he had <een deli<eratel- 0ingled out .or Bro0ecution
on <a0i0 o. 0ome invidiou0 criterion. /eoBle v Blend I19$1" %th Di0t; 121 Cal ,BB 3d 21%" 17% Cal
!Btr 2*3. 1n Bro0ecution .or Bo00e00ion o. cocaine" de.endant .ailed to e0ta<li0h de.en0e o.
di0criminator- Bro0ecution" <a0ed on allegation0 that Bolice o..icer .ailed to reBort drug activitie0 o.
hi0 .riend0 or hi0 o=n alleged drug activit-" =here de.endant .ailed to allege that Bro0ecutor" <-
=ord0 or conduct" either e)Blicitl- or imBlicitl-" authoriOed Bolice o..icer0 to engage in al' 9%
,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age *4 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No
Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. leged conduct claimed <- de.endant. /eoBle v @urO I1992" Colo
,BB; $47 /2d 194. /ractice o. 0heri..>0 deBartment to conduct Hrever0e 0tingH oBeration0 Iin =hich
undercover agent0 o..er to 0ell drug0 to 0u0Bected tra..ic?er0; onl- in ca0e0 involving %+ Bound0 or
more o. mariJuana did not rai0e in.erence o. di0criminator- en.orcement. 3=en v State I19$3" (la
,BB D1; 443 So 2d 173. !etailer Bro0ecuted .or 0elling drug BaraBhernalia in violation o. 0tatute
.ailed to e0ta<li0h di0criminator- or 0elective en.orcement o. the la=" =here onl- evidence o..ered
=a0 that de.endant and one other e0ta<li0hment received =arning letter0 and that onl- de.endant =a0
0u<0eAuentl- Bro0ecuted" and argument that although hundred0 o. merchant0 0old 0and=ich <ag0 onl-
de.endant =a0 arre0ted .or 0elling drug BaraBhernalia: mere .act that de.endant0 =ere .ir0t to <e
Bro0ecuted under la= did not alone e0ta<li0h that di0trict attorne->0 o..ice engaged in ar<itrar-
en.orcement o. the la=. State v Dunn I19$3; 233 @an 411" **2 /2d 12$*. See /eoBle v Barn=ell
I19$9; 143 4i0c 2d 922" %41 N7S2d **4" S $. De.endant .ailed to e0ta<li0h Brima .acie ca0e o.
0elective Bro0ecution" although de.endant alleged that 0ome cocon0Birator0 =ere 0imilarl- 0ituated
<ut received .avora<le treatment9 de.endant =a0 charged =ith more 0eriou0 narcotic0 o..en0e0 and
- 126 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
running corruBt organiOation" 0econdar- Bla-er0 =ere o..ered Blea agreement0 in e)change .or their
te0timon- again0t de.endant" and evidence e0ta<li0hed that de.endant =a0 more culBa<le than hi0
cohort0. Com. v. !ic?a<augh" 7+* ,.2d $2* I/a. SuBer. Ct. 1997;" reargument denied" I(e<. 27"
199$;. Deci0ion to Bro0ecute into)icated teenage driver =ho 0truc? and ?illed three children" and not
to Bro0ecute comBanion =ho 0uBBlied liAuor" =a0 not <a0ed on unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard and Bro0ecution
=a0 thu0 not di0criminator-. State v Kudge I19$4; 1++ 8a0h 2d 7+*" *7% /2d 219. Q&oB o. SectionR
QEND 3( S5//6E4EN&R S 12. E0caBe .rom cu0tod- 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0 in =hich the de.endant0
=ere convicted o. e0caBing .rom Bri0on" the court0 held that de.endant0 had not e0ta<li0hed the
de.en0e o. di0criminator- Bro0ecution. 8here" during
a 2'-ear Beriod in =hich 31 inmate0 e0caBed .rom the ,riOona State /ri0on" onl- .ive charge0 o.
e0caBe =ere .iled" including the charge0 again0t the t=o aBBellant0" the court in State v Scott I1972;
17 ,riO ,BB 1$3" 49* /2d *+9" .ound no merit in aBBellant0> <are a00ertion that the- =ere denied
eAual Brotection and due Broce00 <ecau0e the- =ere charged =ith e0caBe =hile other0 =ere not" and
.urther .ound no 0ugge0tion o. invidiou0 di0crimination to=ard aBBellant0. 1n Common=ealth v
/hilliB0 I1977; 24$ /a SuBer 4++" 37% ,2d 1%$" de.endant contended that he 0u..ered BreJudice at the
hand0 o. the Common=ealth <- virtue o. the .act that he =a0 Bro0ecuted and received a 0entence on
an e0caBe charge" =hile a co.elon in the e0caBe =a0 not Bro0ecuted. Stating that in e00ence de.endant
0eemed to <e arguing di0criminator- Bro0ecution" the court 0aid it =a0 =ell e0ta<li0hed that a
de.endant alleging 0uch conduct mu0t Brove the element o. intentional and BurBo0e.ul di0crimination
<e.ore a violation o. con0titutional right0 can <e 0ho=n. 1n reJecting de.endant>0 claim" the court 0aid
that de.endant had Bre0ented no evidence to e0ta<li0h 0uch an element and the mere .ailure o.
authoritie0 to Bro0ecute other0 0imilarl- 0ituated doe0 not con0titute a violation o. due Broce00 or
eAual Brotection 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age *% 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12
- 127 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. right0. S 13. :am<ling QCumulative
SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e0 in =hich the de.endant0 =ere convicted o. violation o. variou0
la=0 concerning gam<ling" it =a0 held that the de.en0e o. di0criminator- Bro0ecution had not <een
e0ta<li0hed <- the de.endant0. De.endant" convicted o. violating an ordinance ma?ing it a
mi0demeanor .or an- Ber0on to vi0it a <arricaded hou0e containing gam<ling imBlement0" contended
in ,h Sin v 8ittman I19+%; 19$ 5S %++" 49 6 Ed 1142" 2% S Ct 7%*" that the ordinance violated S 1
o. the (ourteenth ,mendment o. the Con0titution o. the 5nited State0" in that it deBrived him o. the
eAual Brotection o. the la=0" <ecau0e it =a0 en.orced 0olel- and e)clu0ivel- again0t Ber0on0 o. the
Chine0e race. Stating that de.endant 0ought to 0et a0ide a criminal la=" not on the ground that it =a0
uncon0titutional on it0 .ace or that it =a0 di0criminator- in tendenc- and ultimate actual oBeration"
<ut on the ground that it =a0 made 0o <- the manner o. it0 admini0tration" the court 0aid it =a0 a
matter o. Broo. and no .act0 0hould <e omitted to ma?e it out comBletel-. &he court noted that there
=a0 no averment that the condition0 and Bractice0 to =hich the ordinance =a0 directed did not e)i0t
e)clu0ivel- among the Chine0e" or that there =ere o..ender0 again0t the ordinance" other than the
Chine0e" a0 to =hom it =a0 not en.orced. Stating that no latitude o. intention 0hould <e indulged" and
that there 0hould <e certaint- to ever- intent" the court a..irmed de.endant>0 conviction. 1n
8a0hington v 5nited State0 I19*$; 13+ ,BB DC 374" 4+1 (2d 91%" the court reJected the de.endant>0
contention that it =a0 error .or the trial court to re.u0e to Bermit him to introduce evidence to Brove
an uncon0titutional di0tinction in the en.orcement o. the 0tatute under =hich he =a0 charged. &he
de.endant" convicted o. t=o violation0 o. the lotter- la=0" 0ought to Brove the e)i0tence o. other
lotterie0 in the to=n =hich =ere not 0u<Jected to the Brovi0ion0 o. the 0tatute. &he court 0aid that a
deBrivation o. eAual Brotection mu0t inevita<l- <e .ound in the actual e)i0tence o. an invidiou0
di0crimination and not in the mere Bo00i<ilit- that there =ill <e other li?e or 0imilar ca0e0 =hich =ill
- 128 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<e treated more lenientl-. Stating that there =a0 no claim o.Vmuch le00 a Bro.e00ed a<ilit- to
0u<0tantiateVan- intentional" BurBo0e.ul di..erentiation" the court 0aid it =ould not do 0imBl- to
0ho=" a0 de.endant =ould" that en.orcement o. the la= =a0 la)" or even that other o..ender0 had gone
.ree. 1n a..irming de.endant0> conviction0 .or <oo?ma?ing" the court in /eoBle v 3rec? I194*; 74 Cal
,BB 2d 21%" 1*$ /2d 1$*" reJected de.endant0> contention that the trial court erroneou0l- 0u0tained
o<Jection0 to certain Aue0tion0 aimed at 0ho=ing that the Bolice di0criminated again0t hor0erace
<etting in that the- did not raid certain e0ta<li0hment0 0BecialiOing in election and other t-Be0 o. <et0.
De.endant0 did not o..er to Brove that the- =ere <eing Bro0ecuted <ecau0e o. their race" color"
religion" or Bolitical <elie.0" <ut 0imBl- 0ought to 0ho= that other0 eAuall- guilt- =ere not <eing
Bro0ecuted. De.endant0 contended that the .act0 that the- 0ought to Brove =ould demon0trate that
the- had <een denied eAual Brotection o. the la=0. Stating that the di0crimination claimed <-
de.endant0 =a0 that tho0e engaged in hor0erace <etting =ere <eing Bro0ecuted =hile tho0e =ho ran
other t-Be0 o. illegal <etting e0ta<li0hment0 =ere not" the court 0aid that 0uch t-Be o. di0crimination"
i. di0crimination it <e" =a0 not =ithin the rule o. the ca0e0 cited <- de.endant0. &he court 0aid that it
=a0 the la= that a Ber' 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age ** 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ 0on committing a crime cannot
claim an unla=.ul di0crimination uBon a mere 0ho=ing that other Ber0on0 or cla00e0 o. Ber0on0 have
committed the 0ame o..en0e and have not <een Bro0ecuted there.or. &he trial court>0 di0mi00al o.
criminal charge0 again0t the de.endant on the ground o. di0criminator- en.orcement o. the la= =a0
rever0ed in /eoBle v :arner I1977" 2d Di0t; 72 Cal ,BB 3d 214" 139 Cal !Btr $3$. Conviction0 .or
the.t <- deceBtion" the.t <- .ailure to ma?e reAuired di0Bo0ition o. .und0 received" criminal
con0Birac-" and aiding in the con0ummation o. crime0 =arrant0 di0<arment. 1$ /a.C.S.,. SS 9+3"
3921" 3922" 3927" %1+7. 3..ice o. Di0ciBlinar- Coun0el v. Co0tigan" %2* /a. 1*" %$4 ,.2d 29*
I199+;. Vin a ca0e in =hich a <ar aBBlicant engaged in thiever- o. a reBetitive nature" the court
- 129 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
denied the aBBlicant>0 aBBlication 0ince it aBBeared that the aBBlicant had not undergone the reAui0ite
reha<ilitation o. hi0 good moral character" the court Bointing out that the cru) o. the aBBlicant>0 ca0e
=a0 that hi0 Bre0ent moral character .itne00 Ju0ti.ied hi0 admi00ion to the <ar and that hi0 reBetitive
the.t0 =ere the re0ult o. a temBorar- a<erration that no longer e)i0ted and o. =hich there =a0 no
danger o. recurrence under the 0tre00 o. reBre0enting client09 the evidence o. reha<ilitation in the ca0e
re0ted Brimaril- on the oBinion o. a B0-chologi0t" -et the reBort .urni0hed no in0ight into =h- a 2*'
-ear'old college graduate =ho had comBleted one -ear o. evening la= 0chool 0tud- =ould reBeatedl-
engage in Bett- thiever- =hile an invitee in the home0 o. hi0 cu0tomer0" and the reBort o..ered no
e)Blanation o. ho= thi0 comBul0ion" i. indeed it =ere a comBul0ion" had <een treated" the court
adding that it .urni0hed no rea0on0 =h- the aBBlicant>0 reha<ilitation 0hould <e con0idered .ull and
comBlete. ,BBlication o. :. S." 291 4d. 1$2" 433 ,.2d 11%9 I19$1; .Conviction o. Bett- the.t =hile
emBlo-ed a0 a00i0tant Bro0ecuting attorne- =arrant0 one-ear 0u0Ben0ion .rom Bractice o. la=" =ith
that 0anction 0u0Bended on condition that no other violation0 o. di0ciBlinar- rule Brohi<iting illegal
conduct involving moral turBitude <e committed. Code o. /ro..!e0B." D! 1H1+2I,;I3H%;.
Di0ciBlinar- Coun0el v. Na00" *% 3hio St. 3d 1*+" *+2 N.E.2d *1+ I1992;. Conviction o. .ir0t'degree
retail .raud .or 0hoBli.ting =arrant0 0u0Ben0ion .rom the Bractice o. la= .or one -ear =ithout credit
.or time 0erved. :overnment o. the Bar !ule # I9;Ia;Iiii;9 Code o. /ro..!e0B." D! 1H1+2I,;I3H%;.
Di0ciBlinar- Coun0el v. ,<oo?ire" *3 3hio St. 3d 391" %$$ N.E.2d 793 I1992;. ,ttorne- Bett- the.t
conviction .or 0hoBli.ting and her conviction .or tamBering =ith record0 =arranted 0u0Ben0ion .rom
Bractice o. la= .or t=o -ear0" =ith one -ear 0u0Bended" and uBon comBletion o. 0u0Ben0ion" attorne-
mu0t 0u<mit to B0-chiatric e)amination to determine =hether 0he i0 emotionall- .it to re0ume Bractice
o. la=. Code o. /ro..!e0B." D! 1H1+2I,;I4" %;. &oledo Bar ,00n. v. 6oc?hart" $4 3hio St. 3d 7"
199$'3hio'*$7" 7+1 N.E.2d *$* I199$;. ,ttorne- conviction0 .or 0hoBli.ting and hi0 .ailure to reBort
- 130 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
one o. tho0e conviction0 to Bar ,00ociation =hen 0Beci.icall- Aue0tioned =arranted 0u0Ben0ion .rom
Bractice o. la= .or 1$ month0" =ith one -ear o. 0u0Ben0ion 0ta-ed Bending 0ucce00.ul comBletion o.
one'-ear Bro<ation Beriod and aBBroBriate coun0eling. Code o. /ro..!e0B." D! 1H1+2I,;I3" 4" *;" D!
1H1+3I,;. Cincinnati Bar ,00n. v. (idler" $3 3hio St. 3d 39*" 199$'3hio'39" 7++ N.E.2d 323
I199$;.&he court in ,BBlication o. 2o=ard C." 2$* 4d. 244" 4+7 ,.2d 1124 I1979;" held that the
0tate <oard o. la= e)aminer0 acted BroBerl- in not con0idering t=o Bett- the.t o..en0e0 .or =hich the
aBBlicant had <een Blaced on Bro<ation =ithout verdict" having <een legall- e)Bunged under the
Brovi0ion0 o. 4d. ,nn. Code art. 27" S 737" in determining the moral character o. the aBBlicant .or
admi00ion to the 4ar-land Bar. , <ar aBBlicant =ho had <een charged =ith 0hoBli.ting" <ut not
convicted o. the crime" 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 /age $3 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%; \
2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. =ould <e entitled to admi00ion to the
3regon Bar" Barticularl- 0ince he had aBBarentl- made re0titution in the criminal matter" the court
held in ,BBlication o. &o<iga" 31+ 3r. 4*" 791 /.2d $3+ I199+;. ,n aBBlicant .or admi00ion to the <ar
mu0t Brove good character" the court remar?ed" and" <e.ore the court ma- admit an aBBlicant" it mu0t"
Bur0uant to 3r. !ev. Stat. S 9.2%+" direct an order to <e entered to the e..ect that an aBBlicant i0 o.
Hgood moral character.H &he rea0on .or the reAuirement" the court continued" i0 Brotection o. the
Bu<lic in it0 dealing0 =ith Bractitioner0" although the Brotection o. the Bu<lic doe0 not Bermit den-ing
individual aBBlication0
on mere 0u0Bicion. 2ere" the court 0tated" 0everal circuit court Judge0" North=e0tern 6a= School
.acult- and admini0trative 0ta.." the la= 0chool dean" a nun" other religiou0 Bro.e00ional0" /ortland
State 5niver0it- .acult-" and over a hal.'doOen Bracticing attorne-0 vouched .or the aBBlicant>0 moral
character and hone0t-" and 0trong and uninterruBted cro00e)amination o. man- o. them did not 0ha?e
their <elie. in the aBBlicant>0 character <a0ed uBon their actual e)Berience and contact0 =ith him.
- 131 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4oreover" the court indicated" arre0t record0 o<tained <- the <ar revealed no other arre0t0 <e.ore or
a.ter the aBBlicant>0 19$% 0hoBli.ting charge. Ba0ed on the totalit- o. evidence in the record" and
giving due =eight to the 0u<0tantial <od- o. evidence .rom a =ide variet- o. citiOen0 a0 to hi0
character and hone0t-" the court .ound <- clear and convincing evidence that the aBBlicant =a0 a
Ber0on o. good moral character entitled to admi00ion to the Bar o. 3regon. &he court in ,BBlication
o. Schae..er" 273 3r. 49+" %41 /.2d 14++ I197%;" held that the arre0t or citation o. an aBBlicant .or
admi00ion to the 3regon Bar on a charge o. <eing a minor in Bo00e00ion o. <eer =a0 not a 0igni.icant
re.lection uBon the aBBlicant>0 moral character .or the BurBo0e0 o. admi00ion. 2o=ever" uBon ground0
not relevant in the in0tant ca0e" the court determined that .urther inve0tigation o. the aBBlicant>0
conduct =a0 nece00ar- in order to determine =hether he =a0 Auali.ied .or admi00ion to the <ar.
a <ar aBBlicant =ho 0tole 0leeBing Bill0 .rom cu0tomer0> home0 =hile =or?ing a0 a 0ale0Ber0on a.ter
hi0 .ir0t -ear o. la= 0chool and =ho 0u<0eAuentl- =a0 convicted o. Bett- the.t0 .ailed to e0ta<li0h
Bre0ent good moral character" the court related" the court o<0erving" more 0Beci.icall-" that the
aBBlicant had o<tained a Jo< 0elling <a<- Bicture0" =or? that involved calling on cu0tomer0 at their
home0" and that" 0ome month0 a.ter entering thi0 line o. =or?" the aBBlicant <egan to 0teal Bill0 .rom
hi0 cu0tomer0 =hen he reAue0ted Bermi00ion to u0e the cu0tomer>0 <athroom" a.ter =hich he =ould
0earch .or" and 0teal" the medication9 vie=ing the reha<ilitation reBort BreBared =ith re0Bect to the
aBBlicant mo0t charita<l-" it 0eemed to re.lect a lac? o. aBBreciation o. the 0eriou0 e..ect that
reBetitive the.t <- an adult la= 0tudent ha0 on the di..icult ta0? o. determining Bre0ent moral
character .itne00 .or admi00ion to the <ar" the court concluded. ,BBlication o. :. S." 291 4d. 1$2"
433 ,.2d 11%9 I19$1; .1n (lorida Bd. o. Bar E)aminer0 !e: 6. @. D." 397 So. 2d *73 I(la. 19$1;" a
Broceeding in0tituted on a Betition .or <ar admi00ion" the court held that the .inding0 o. the <oard o.
- 132 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<ar e)aminer0 =ith re0Bect to an incident in =hich a <ar aBBlicant =a0 charged =ith" and =a0 later
acAuitted o." 0hoBli.ting" =a0 not alone 0u..icient to <ar the aBBlicant>0 admi00ion to Bractice o. la=.
&he aBBlicant>0 Jur- acAuittal" the court noted at the out0et" =hile not <inding on the <oard or on the
court in reaching conclu0ion0 regarding the alleged incident o. the.t it0el." had 0Becial 0igni.icance
=ith regard to the <oard>0 conclu0ion that the aBBlicant lied three time0 in a00erting her innocence.
&hat i0" the court remar?ed" the Jur->0 conclu0ion vindicated the aBBlicant>0 declaration o. innocence
o. the crime charged <e.ore and at the Jur- trial" the court adding that her acAuittal =ould continue to
Ju0ti.- her Brote0tation o. innocence at her 0u<0eAuent <oard hearing" even though the <oard might
have thought it advantageou0 to ma?e a 0ho=ing o. reBentance. &he court concluded that the
aBBlicant had carried her <urden o. demon0trating good character" and had 0ho=n a Bre0ent .itne00 to
enter the Bractice o. la=" a0 a re0ult o. =hich her Betition .or admi00ion =ould <e granted , <ar
aBBlicant =ho0e 0hoBli.ting charge had <een di0mi00ed =ould <e entitled to admi00ion to the 3regon
Bar" the court held in ,BBlication o. &o<iga" 31+ 3r. 4*" 791 /.2d $3+ I199+;. &he court e)Blained
that the aBBlicant>0 0hoBli.ting charge =a0 di0mi00ed in 19$* a0 Bart o. a civil comBromi0e in =hich
the aBBlicant Baid L1++" the court adding that the aBBlicant>0 attorne- on the 0hoBli.ting charge
e)Blained to the <ar e)aminer0 that he convinced the aBBlicant to acceBt the civil comBromi0e and
di0mi00al o. the charge0 over the aBBlicant>0 o<Jection0 that the aBBlicant =a0 innocent. &he trial
Banel did not .ind that the 0tore incident =a0 ground0 .or re.u0ing admi00ion to Bractice" though the
.act o. a charge and a di0mi00al i0 not" in and o. it0el." determinative on the Aue0tion o. moral
character" the court declared.Vthe court held that an aBBlicant .or admi00ion to the 4ar-land Bar
=ho had <een convicted .or 0hoBli.ting on t=o occa0ion0" once in 19** .or 0tealing a <ottle o. rum
.rom a 0uBermar?et and again in 1971 .or 0tealing a taBe mea0ure" e0ta<li0hed hi0 Bre0ent moral
character .itne00 =here there =a0 no evidence in the record even remotel- 0ugge0ting that he had
- 133 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<een involved in an- mi0conduct in -ear0 .ollo=ing the 1971 the.t o..en0e. ,BBlication o. ,llan S."
2$2 4d. *$3" 3$7 ,.2d 271 I197$;.
,n aBBlicant to the <ar" =ho had <een convicted o. 0hoBli.ting and re0i0ting arre0t =ith violence" did
not have the reAui0ite character and .itne00 to allo= admi00ion to the <ar at the Bre0ent time" the court
held in 1n re !oot0" 7*2 ,.2d 11*1 I!.1. 2+++;. 4ore 0Beci.icall-" the aBBlicant" =hen he =a0 1$
-ear0 o. age" =a0 charged =ith and convicted o. 0hoBli.ting in (lorida" and" 0u<0eAuentl-" he =a0
arre0ted again in (lorida and convicted o. the .elon- o. re0'$; .i0ting arre0t =ith violence. &he court
commented that the aBBlicant had the <urden at all time0 to demon0trate hi0 moral .itne00 and
character to Bractice a0 a la=-er in the 0tate" and here" the aBBlicant>0 Ba0t" including hi0 criminal
record and conviction0" gave the court Bau0e in acceBting the aBBlicant>0 avo=al to that he could no=
in good .aith ta?e and a<ide <- the reAui0ite attorne->0 oath. &he court o<0erved" a0 =ell" that the
aBBlicant 0tated to the committee and to the court that he =ould not onl- ta?e the attorne->0 oath i.
admitted to the <ar" <ut that he =ould a<ide <- it. 2o=ever" the court 0tre00ed" the Brior record o. the
aBBlicant" including hi0 criminal Ba0t and other Aue0tiona<le conduct demon0trating hi0 lac? o.
candor and truth.ulne00" ca0t 0uch dou<t uBon the 0incerit- o. the aBBlicant>0 Bro.e00ed =illingne00 to
a<ide <- the term0 o. the oath that he mu0t ta?e a0 a mem<er o. the <ar o. thi0 0tate that hi0
aBBlication 0hould <e denied at the Bre0ent time. ,lthough the record revealed .ar too man- recent
and Ba0t criminal act0" in0tance0 o. untruth.ulne00" and a lingering ina<ilit- o. the candidate to ta?e
the reAui0ite attorne->0 oath in good .aith" to =arrant current admi00ion" the court held that the denial
o. hi0 aBBlication =ould not Breclude the Bo00i<ilit- o. the aBBlicant reaBBl-ing .or and o<taining
aBBroval o. hi0 admi00ion to the <ar at 0ome later time" though no 0ooner than t=o -ear0 .rom the
date o. the oBinion.Vin <ar aBBlicant .itne00 Broceeding0" the court" a..irming the deci0ion o. the
Board o. Bar E)aminer0 den-ing a <ar aBBlicant>0 certi.ication" held that the .ailure o. the aBBlicant
- 134 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to Brove reha<ilitation .ollo=ing a conviction on non.elon- charge0" including a00ault" in0ulting an
o..icer" 0hoBli.ting" the.t <- ta?ing" 0imBle <atter-" tre0Ba00ing" and Bo00e00ing a .irearm =ithout a
Bermit" during a 1+'-ear Beriod ending at age 2* Brecluded certi.ication o. .itne00 to Bractice la=" the
court relating that =here an aBBlicant .or admi00ion to the <ar ha0 a criminal record" hi0 or her <urden
o. e0ta<li0hing Bre0ent good moral character ta?e0 on the added =eight o. Broving .ull and comBlete
reha<ilitation 0u<0eAuent to conviction. ,BBlication o. Ca0on" 249 :a. $+*" 294 S.E.2d %2+ I19$2;
.,ccording to the court in (lorida Bd. o. Bar E)aminer0 !e: 6. @. D." 397 So. 2d *73 I(la. 19$1;" a
.inding o. the Board o. Bar E)aminer0 =ith regard to an incident in =hich the aBBlicant =a0 charged
=ith" <ut not convicted o." 0hoBli.ting" =a0 not alone 0u..icient to <ar admi00ion to the Bractice o. la=
in (lorida in light o. 0u<0tantial" unre.uted evidence o. the candidate>0 character. &he court 0tated that
it =a0 comBelled to conclude that the Board o. Bar E)aminer0> .inding0" even though 0ome=hat
0uBBorted in the record" =a0 not alone 0u..icient to <ar the aBBlicant>0 admi00ion. &he .act that the
Board o. Bar E)aminer0 heard live te0timon-" the court Bointed out" did not in0ulate it0 .act'.inding
.rom revie= <- the court in a 0ome=hat more detailed manner than i0 u0ual in an aBBellate revie= o.
a Jur- .inding" the court adding that the <oard>0 HtrialH did not Breclude it .rom revie=ing the .actual
underBinning0 o. it0 recommendation" <a0ed on an indeBendent revie= o. the record develoBed at the
hearing0. 8hile additional adver0e .inding0 =ere made <- the <oard" the court Bointed out" t=o o.
the0e .inding0 0temmed .rom the aBBlicant>0 Ber0i0tent Brote0tation o. her innocence o. =rongdoing
<e.ore or at her criminal trial" and the0e added nothing at all to her character anal-0i0. Similarl-" the
court 0tre00ed" the other adver0e .inding lac?ed indeBendent 0igni.icance in evaluating the aBBlicant>0
character a0 it .lo=ed" cumulativel-" .rom the <oard>0 conclu0ion that the aBBlicant =a0" in .act" guilt-
o. the alleged larcen- charge0. ,ttorne- =ho commit0 act o. Bro.e00ional mi0conduct <- 0hoBli.ting
=ill <e cen0ured" =here" at time o. incident" attorne- Judgment =a0 0u..icientl- imBaired to cau0e her
- 135 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a<errational conduct and =here attorne- ha0 0ought and o<tained aBBroBriate B0-chological helB.
4c@inne- Kudiciar- 6a= S 9+9 N.7.Ct.!ule0" S *91.2. 4atter o. 4ongioi" 213 ,.D.2d 1+7" *31
N.7.S.2d 77 I2d DeB>t 199%;.
VConviction o. cla00 B mi0demeanor o. the.t and admi00ion to charge o. 0hoBli.ting =arranted
24Hmonth 0u0Ben0ion .rom Bractice o. la=" 0ta-ed on condition that attorne- commit no .urther act0
o. the.t" =here attorne- had no Brior di0ciBlinar- record" re0titution =a0 made in <oth in0tance0" he
=a0 =ell'regarded a0 comBetent and talented la=-er" he had recentl- lo0t hi0 emBlo-ment" he =a0
receiving treatment .or Ber0onal and emotional 0tre00" including inten0ive treatment 0ince time o.
incident0" he made .ull and .ree di0clo0ure in di0ciBlinar- inve0tigation and =a0 cooBerative to=ard
Broceeding0" he admitted conduct in <oth Betition0" and he =a0 contrite and remor0e.ul. !ule0 .or
6a=-er Di0ciBline" !ule 1.2" 0u<d. ,I2;9 Standard0 .or 1mBo0ing 6a=-er Sanction0" Standard 9.3.
,BBlication .or Di0ciBlinar- ,ction 113 ,.6.!. 1179 /age 34+ 113 ,.6.!. 1179 I3riginall-
Bu<li0hed in 193$; 1997 ND 234" %71 N.8.2d 37+ IN.D. 1997;.Conviction o. .ir0t'degree retail .raud
.or 0hoBli.ting =arrant0 0u0Ben0ion .rom the Bractice o. la= .or one -ear =ithout credit .or time
0erved. :overnment o. the Bar !ule # I9;Ia;Iiii;9 Code o. /ro..!e0B." D! 1H1+2I,;I3H%;.
Di0ciBlinar- Coun0el v. ,<oo?ire" *3 3hio St. 3d 391" %$$ N.E.2d 793 I1992;.Eight a..idavit0 .rom
attorne-0" attorne- emBlo-er and other re0Bon0i<le Ber0on0 a0 =ell a0 length- te0timon- at hearing o.
B0-chiatri0t =ho treated attorne- .or nearl- three -ear0 .ollo=ing hi0 0hoBli.ting conviction =a0
0u..icient to demon0trate attorne- moral reha<ilitation =ith clear and convincing evidence" Ju0ti.-ing
hi0 rein0tatement to Bractice conditioned uBon attorne- 0ucce00.ul comBletion o. State Bar
e)amination and Bro.e00ional re0Bon0i<ilit- e)am. SDC6 1*H19H$4. /etition o. Draeger" 4*3 N.8.2d
34* IS.D. 199+;.Nevada Birmingham" /etition o." 11+ Nev. 7+" $** /.2d 11%+ I1994; Vin a ca0e in
- 136 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=hich a la= 0chool graduate" =ho had <een .ound guilt- o. con0Birac- to di0tri<ute mariJuana"
Betitioned .or a =aiver o. the rule that an aBBlicant =ho ha0 <een once denied admi00ion to the <ar .or
.ailure to meet nece00ar- character reAuirement0" the court 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 /age 39 3 ,.6.!.*th 49
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%; \ 2+11 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. held
that the aBBlicant had clearl- and convincingl- demon0trated .ull and comBlete reha<ilitation .rom hi0
Brior criminal involvement9 the court 0tated that the aBBlicant>0 Hman- Bo0itive accomBli0hment0
0ince the commi00ion o. hi0 criminal o..en0e0"H along =ith the num<er and magnitude o. hi0
achievement0" 0uBBorted the determination that the aBBlicant =a0 reha<ilitated and that he =ould
Hdi0tingui0h him0el. in the Bractice o. the la=.H /etition o. Birmingham" 11+ Nev. 7+" $** /.2d 11%+
I1994; . ,ccording to the court in /etition o. Birmingham" 11+ Nev. 7+" $** /.2d 11%+ I1994;" an
aBBlicant =ho had Bled guilt- to a .ederal charge o. con0Birac- to di0tri<ute mariJuana and 0erved
time in Bri0on =ould nonethele00 <e entitled to admi00ion to the <ar. &he aBBlicant =a0 a Bilot =ho"
in 19$3" admittedl- =a0 involved in a 0cheme to 0muggle mariJuana into the 5nited State0 .rom
South ,merica9 he voluntaril- =ithdre= .rom thi0 illicit activit- and entered la= 0chool" though"
=hile in la= 0chool" hi0 Ba0t Hcaught uB =ith him"H and he =a0 arre0ted <- .ederal o..icial0. &he
aBBlicant Bleaded guilt- to a .ederal charge o. con0Birac- to di0tri<ute mariJuana and =a0 0ent to
Bri0on" and" <ecau0e o. hi0 cooBeration =ith la= en.orcement" he =a0 Blaced on earl- Barole in
(e<ruar- 19$9. 8hile on Barole" the aBBlicant returned to la= 0chool and =a0 a<le to graduate in
4a- 199+" =hereuBon he too? the Nevada <ar e)amination and Ba00ed it. &he aBBlicant =a0
di0charged .rom Barole in 1991" and" a.ter hearing0" the 0tate Board o. Bar E)aminer0 recommended
to the court that he <e admitted to the Bractice o. la=. 1n a =ritten order" the court initiall- re.u0ed to
acceBt the <oard>0 recommendation .or the aBBlicant>0 admi00ion and Aue0tioned the <oard>0
conclu0ion that the aBBlicant Bo00e00ed the H0uita<le moral characterH that =ould Auali.- him to <e
- 137 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
num<ered among tho0e licen0ed to Bractice la= in thi0 0tate. &he graduate Betitioned .or a =aiver o.
the rule that an aBBlicant =ho ha0 <een once denied admi00ion to the <ar .or .ailure to meet nece00ar-
character reAuirement0 ma- not aBBl- again" and .or admi00ion to Bractice la=" and the court" on
revie=" granted the Betition. &he court commented that the Board o. Bar E)aminer0" having given a
good deal o. time to the matter in the .orm o. inve0tigation0 and hearing0" i0 in a <etter Bo0ition than
the court to Ba00 Judgment on the Aue0tion o. =hether admitting the aBBlicant i0 0o de0tructive o.
HBu<lic con.idence in the <ar a0 a =holeH a0 to reAuire den-ing him mem<er0hiB in the <ar. 8hile
noting that it re0Bected the right o. the minorit- to <e Barticularl- 0trict =hen it come0 to drug
con0Birator0" there =a0 nonethele00 in0u..icient rea0on in the ca0e to reJect the <oard>0 .avora<le
recommendation and to e)clude the aBBlicant 0olel- uBon the 3 ,.6.!.*th 49 /age %* 3 ,.6.!.*th 49
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 2++%;
&2E D1((E!ENCE BE&8EEN SE,!C2 G SE1Z5!E 4an- la=-er0" Judge0 and Bolice o..icer0
tal? a<out M0earch and 0eiOureN a0 though it i0 all one thing. ,ctuall-" t=o di..erent conceBt0 are
involved. 5.S. v. Kaco<0en" 4** 5.S. 1+9 I19$4; and 5.S. v. ,ver-" 137 (.3d 343 I*th Cir. 1997;. 1.
, M0earchN i0 a Bolice intru0ion on a legitimate e)Bectation o. Brivac-. 2. , M0eiOureN Ia; o. the
Ber0on occur0 =hen Bolice inter.ere =ith an individualP0 .reedom o. movement9 I<; o. BroBert- i0 an
inter.erence =ith a Ber0onP0 right to Bo00e00 or control the item. &he 4th ,mendment rule0 0et .orth
<- the 5S SuBreme Court and other court0 are di..erent in the .ollo=ing t=o Bolice action0: I1;
SeiOure0 o. the Ber0on I0toB and .ri0? and arre0t0;. I2; ,ll other 0earche0 and 0eiOure0 Iinter.erence
=ith Brivac- or Bo00e00ion;. & 2 E C , ! D 1 N , 6 ! 5 6 E i 0 d i . . e r e n t . o r 1 G 2 1
SeiOure0 o. Ber0on0 need Ju0ti.ication <ut generall- don>t need a 0earch =arrant even i. there i0 time
to get a =arrant. &here are t=o main e)ceBtion0 =hen an arre0t or 0earch =arrant i0 reAuired in an
- 138 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arre0t 0ituation. I/a-ton rule and Steagald rule ' di0cu00ed later;. 2 ,ll other t-Be0 o. Brivac-
intru0ion0 into Blace0 or 0eiOure0 o. item0 u0uall- need a =arrant. &he 5nited State0 and Nevada
SuBreme Court0 have 0tated reBeatedl- ' 0earche0 =ithout a =arrant are Bre0umed to <e unla=.ul and
Bolice need to <e BreBared to te0ti.- in court and demon0trate I=ith legal argument <- the D,; that an
e)ceBtion aBBlie0. Cali.ornia v. ,cevedo" 111 S.Ct. 19$2 I1991; and /hilliB0 v. State" 1+* Nev. 7*3
I199+;. &he0e conceBt0 are di0cu00ed in detail later in thi0 outline. E. &2E S5/!E4E C35!& ,ND
&2E EZC65S13N,!7 !56E (or a<out 1++ -ear0 a.ter 1791 .e= 5.S. SuBreme Court ca0e0 =ere
decided concerning the meaning o. the (ourth ,mendment. Bet=een 1$$* and 1914 0everal ca0e0
=ere decided ending =ith 8ee?0 v. 5.S. I1914; that 0aid in all (ederal court0" evidence 0eiOed in
violation o. the (ourth ,mendment =ould <e e)cluded. 1n 19*1" the 5.S. SuBreme Court decided
4aBB v. 3hio" 3*7 5.S. *43 0a-ing the (ederal e)clu0ionar- rule aBBlied in State court Broceeding0
a0 =ell. &he theor- u0ed <- the Court to Ju0ti.- thi0 ruling =a0 that the e)clu0ionar- rule =ould deter
unla=.ul Bolice conduct <- removing the incentive to act unla=.ull-. INote: no 0cienti.ic or 0tati0tical
0tud-" either <e.ore or 0ince 4aBB" ha0 ever Broved or di0Broved thi0 theor- o. the 9 Court.;. (.
(!51& 3( &2E /31S3NED &!EE 1n 19*3" the 5.S. SuBreme Court decided 8ong Sun v. 5nited
State0" 371 5.S. 4+7 I19*3; and held that i. there i0 a 4th ,mendment violation <- Bolice" the
evidence thro=n out i0 not onl- that =hich i0 immediatel- recovered <ut all evidence that derive0
directl- .rom it. (or thi0 rea0on" a de.en0e la=-er =ill .ocu0 on the earlie0t a0Bect o. the Bolice
contact =ith the de.endant and tr- to .ind .ault =ith the Bolice conduct. &hi0 rule mean0 that" in mo0t
ca0e0" i. Bolice commit a 4th ,mendment violation" it =ill Boi0on or MtaintN evidence o<tained later in
the 0ame inve0tigation even i. Bolice" a.ter committing the violation" then .ollo=ed la=.ul 4th
,mendment Brocedure0 <e.ore 0eiOing the evidence. ,n e)amBle o. thi0 rule i0 .ound in the ca0e o.
,rter<urn v. State" 111 Nev. 1121I199*;. 1n that ca0e" Bolice =ere inve0tigating a Ber0on .or the.t o. a
- 139 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
motor vehicle and learned that ,rter<urn =a0 a00ociated =ith the 0u0Bect. ,rter<urn =a0 0een near
the car Bar?ed at a motel. /olice 0toBBed him and" according to the SuBreme CourtP0 vie= o. the
.act0" reAuired him to go to the Bolice 0tation .or Aue0tioning. ,t the 0tation" he con0ented to a 0earch
o. hi0 Ber0on =hich turned uB drug0 .or =hich he =a0 convicted. &he Nevada SuBreme Court 0aid
that even i. the con0ent to 0earch at the 0tation =a0 la=.ul" the drug0 =ould <e 0uBBre00ed <ecau0e the
Brior action0 o. the Bolice amounted to hi0 Marre0tN =ithout Bro<a<le cau0e and the con0ent =a0 the
M.ruitN o. the 4th ,mendment violation. ISee thi0 outline M6evel0 o. ContactN a0 to =h- thi0 =a0 an
Marre0t.N;. &he 5.S. SuBreme Court ha0 .ollo=ed the 0ame theor- on man- occa0ion0. (or e)amBle" in
Bro=n v. 1llinoi0" 422 5.S. %9+ I197%; the Court 0aid that the 8ong Sun rule =a0 0till la= and that a
con.e00ion made <- a 0u<Ject 0hortl- a.ter an illegal arre0t =a0 thro=n out even though correct
4iranda =arning0 =ere given a.ter the illegal arre0t. 2o=ever ' over the -ear0 uB to and including
the Bre0ent the 5. S. SuBreme Court ha0 re.u0ed to aBBl- the 0trict 8ong Sun I.ruit o. Boi0oned tree;
rule in 0ome ca0e0. Note: the0e 0ituation0 in =hich a Brior Iin time; 4th ,mendment violation doe0
not re0ult in 0uBBre00ion o. all 0u<0eAuent evidence in the 0ame inve0tigation are the e)ceBtion" not
the rule" and the <urden i0 on the Bolice'Bro0ecution 0ide to Brove the e)ceBtion. I1; 1NDE/ENDEN&
S35!CE D3C&!1NE: Segura v. 5nited State0" 4*$ 5.S. 79* I19$4;. 1. there i0 an illegal Bolice
activit- =hich lead0 to di0cover- o. the evidence <ut there i0 al0o a legal and valid indeBendent
0ource <- =hich Bolice recovered the evidence ' it =ill not <e 0uBBre00ed. ISee H/remi0e0 (reeOeH in
Search 8arrant Section;. I2; 1NE#1&,B6E D1SC3#E!7 D3C&!1NE: Ni) v. 8illiam0" 4*7 5.S.
431 I19$4;. 1. the evidence =ould have <een di0covered an-=a- ' it =ill not <e 0uBBre00ed <a0ed on
illegal Bolice conduct. &he theor- o. the e)clu0ionar- rule i0 that Bolice 0hould not Bro.it .rom their
mi0conduct. &hi0 rationale i0 .urthered <- Butting the Bolice in the 0ame Bo0ition" <ut not a =or0e
Bo0ition than i. no mi0conduct had occurred. 1+ M1nevita<le di0cover-N doe0 not mean that there i0 no
- 140 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0uBBre00ion o. evidence i. the Bolice Mcould haveN gotten the evidence la=.ull-" <ut didnPt. &he
<urden i0 on the Bro0ecution to 0ho= <- a BreBonderance o. the evidence that the Bolice M=ould
haveN di0covered the evidence <- la=.ul mean0. INi) v. 8illiam0; 1t reAuire0 more than an argument
a<out thing0 that in retro0Bect the Bolice could have done. (or e)amBle" in 5.S. v. ,llen" 1%9 (.3d $2
I4th Cir. 199$; the court 0aid" M8e reJect the contention that inevita<le di0cover- aBBlie0 =here
Bolice have Bro<a<le cau0e and then 0earch =ithout a =arrant I<ut argue that the- Mcould haveN
gotten a 0earch =arrant; <ecau0e then there =ould never <e a rea0on .or Bolice to 0ee? a 0earch
=arrant.N See al0o" 5.S. v. Bro=n" *4 (.3d 1+$3 I7th Cir. 199%;. 1nevita<le di0cover- reAuire0 a
0ho=ing that either Ia; at the time o. the mi0conduct" or a.ter the mi0conduct" there =a0 an
indeBendent line o. Bolice inve0tigation under=a- =hich develoBed .act0 not a0 a re0ult o. the
mi0conduct and =ould have led to the di0cover- o. the evidence or" I<;in the alternative" that there
=a0 a 0tandard Brocedure I0uch a0 inventor-; in e..ect that =ould have turned uB the 0ame evidence.
Cocaine =a0 .ound <- Bolice =ithout a =arrant in a mi0routed 0uitca0e <ut the court held that the
cocaine =ould have <een .ound <- the airline =hen it 0earched the 0uitca0e .or identit- o. the o=ner
5.S. v. @enned-" *1 (.3d 494 I*th Cir. 199%;. 1n 5.S. v. 6ar0en" 127 (.3d 9$4 I1+th Cir. 1997;" the
court held Minevita<le di0cover- aBBlie0 =henever an indeBendent inve0tigation =ould have
inevita<l- led to the di0cover- o. the evidence =hether or not the inve0tigation =a0 ongoing at the
time o. the illegal Bolice action.N I,n indeBendent inve0tigation i0 not valid i. made a0 a re0ult o.
thing0 learned <- illegal Bolice action; 3ther ca0e0 uBholding inevita<le di0cover- are 5.S. v.
8ood-" %% (.3d 12%7 I7th Cir. 199%;" 7eoman v. State" 92 Nev. 3*$ I197*;" Clough v. State" 92
Nev. *+3 I197*; and Carli0le v. State" 9$ Nev. 12$ I19$2;. I3; ,&&EN5,&13N: , court =ill admit
evidence recovered a.ter Bolice mi0conduct i. the Bro0ecution can 0ho= that there i0 no 0igni.icant
relation0hiB <et=een the unla=.ul conduct and the di0cover- o. the evidence. Nardone v. 5.S." 3+$
- 141 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.S. 33$ I1939; (actor0 include the time Bro)imit- <et=een the mi0conduct and di0cover-" =hether
there are other intervening circum0tance0" and the BurBo0e and .lagranc- o. the Bolice mi0conduct.
Bro=n v. 1llinoi0" 422 5.S. %9+ I197%; &he0e .actor0 have <een recogniOed <- the great maJorit- o.
court0 =ith re0ult0 di..ering <a0ed on the .act0 o. each ca0e. 5.S. v. 8il0on" 3* (.3d 129$ I%th Cir.
1994;" 5.S. v. SheBhard" 21 (.3d 933 I9th Cir. 1994;. 1n 5nited State0 v. Ceccolini" 43% 5.S. 2*$
I197$; the Court re.u0ed to 0uBBre00 the te0timon- o. a live =itne00 =ho0e identit- =a0 learned a0 a
re0ult o. a 4th ,mendment violation. &he .actor0 =ere: Ba00age o. time <et=een illegal 0earch and
contact =ith =itne00" the .act that =itne00 =a0 te0ti.-ing o. her o=n .ree =ill and the .act that the
Bolice illegalit- =a0 not de0igned or intended to di0cover the identit- o. =itne00e0. See al0o 5.S. v.
4c@innon" 92 (.3d 244 I4th Cir. 199*;. 1n 5nited State0 v. Cre=0" 44% 5.S. 4*3 I19$+; the
de.endant =a0 arre0ted in violation o. the 4th ,mendment. , <oo?ing Bhoto =a0 u0ed in a lineuB and
a =itne00 to the crime identi.ied Cre=0. &he Court 0aid that the Bhoto lineuB identi.ication =a0 11
0uBBre00ed <ut did allo= the =itne00 to te0ti.- at trial and identi.- Cre=0 <a0ed on her recollection
.rom the time o. the crime <ecau0e the a<ilit- to identi.- him came <e.ore the Bolice mi0conduct. &he
de.endantP0 .ace =a0 not the M.ruitN o. the illegal arre0t. M&he <od- or identit- o. a de.endant in a
criminal Broceeding i0 never it0el. 0uBBre00i<le a0 the .ruit o. an unla=.ul arre0t" even i. it i0
conceded that an unla=.ul arre0t" 0earch or interrogation occurred.N1NS v. 6oBeO' 4endoOa" 4*$ 5.S.
1+32 I19$4;. 1n Ne= 7or? v. 2arri0" 11+ S.Ct. 1*4+ I199+; the de.endant =a0 arre0ted in hi0 home in
violation o. the 4th ,mendment. &he Bolice had Bro<a<le cau0e .or the arre0t <ut didnPt get a =arrant
in violation o. the /a-ton rule I0ee M,rre0tN 0ection o. thi0 outline;. 2arri0 =a0 4irandiOed and
con.e00ed at hi0 home9 then a.ter he got to the Bolice
0tation he =a0 4irandiOed again and con.e00ed a 0econd time. &he .ir0t con.e00ion =a0 0uBBre00ed a0
the .ruit o. the /a-ton violation <ut the 0econd =a0 not the M.ruitNo. the illegal arre0t. INote: thi0 ca0e
- 142 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i0 di..erent .rom Bro=n v. 1llinoi0 =here there =a0 no Bro<a<le cau0e .or the arre0t and 4iranda
=arning0 at the Bolice 0tation didnPt cure the MtaintN<ecau0e the con.e00ion =a0 immediatel- tied or
connected to the illegal due to lac? o. /CC Marre0t.N;.
EZC65S13N,!7 !56E ,ND &2E 3BKEC&1#E &ES& 4an- time0 more than one legal
Ju0ti.ication .or a 0earch ma- e)i0t contemBoraneou0l- on a certain 0et o. .act0. 4u0t the o..icer
0elect the HrightH or H<e0tH Ju0ti.icationD &he 5nited State0 SuBreme Court 0ugge0ted the an0=er i0
HN3H in the ca0e o. Scott v. 5nited State0" 43* 5.S. 12$ I197$;. ,lthough mo0t o. the deci0ion
involved a =iretaB i00ue" it held the court 0hould He)amine the challenged 0earch under a 0tandard o.
o<Jective rea0ona<lene00 =ithout regard to the motivation o. the o..icer0 involved.H &hu0" -ou ma-
thin? -ou are ma?ing a legal 0earch on an Hinventor- theor-H and the court rule0 that it =a0nPt a valid
inventor- <ut i. the 0earch can <e Ju0ti.ied a0 a H0earch incident to arre0tH or HBro<a<le cau0e 0earchH
the evidence =ill <e admi00i<le. See State v. :reen=ald" 1+9 Nev. $+$ INev. 1993; in =hich the
Nevada SuBreme Court held that <oth t-Be0 o. 0earche0 =ere invalid on the .act0 o. that ca0e" <ut
clearl- ruled that i. Bolice 0earched or 0eiOed under a =arrant e)ceBtion that Bolice thought =a0 valid
<ut that the court deemed incorrect" 0uBBre00ion =ould not occur i." <a0ed on the totalit- o. .act0 and
circum0tance0 o. the encounter there =a0 a valid o<Jective Ju0ti.ication under a di..erent theor- .or
the Bolice action. 1n Surianello v. State" 92 Nev. 492 I197*; the court 0aid that <ecau0e Bro<a<le
cau0e to arre0t Ior rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion to 0toB; i0 determined <- o<Jective .act0" it =a0 immaterial
that the o..icer te0ti.ied that he didn>t thin? he had enough .act0 .or an arre0t9 hi0 action =a0
nonethele00 la=.ul i. the court determine0 that the legal Ju0ti.ication I!CS .or a 0toB or /CC .or an
arre0t; =a0 Bre0ent. 13 1. 41S&,@ES B7 /361CE 1N SE,!C2 G SE1Z5!E 1n real li.e" there are
time0 =hen Bolice ma?e mi0ta?e0 a<out the .act0 Bertaining to a 0ituation and <a0e =hat =ePll call
- 143 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M4th ,mendment t-Be deci0ion0N on erroneou0 .act0. 8hen thi0 occur0" 0uBBre00ion o. evidence i0
not al=a-0 the re0ult" a0 long a0 the Bolice and Bro0ecutor can carr- the <urden o. 0ho=ing that the
mi0ta?e =a0 a rea0ona<le one and =a0 not the re0ult o. Bolice negligence. (or e)amBle" in 2ill v.
Cali.ornia" 4+1 5.S. *4% I1971;" Bolice =ere inve0tigating a ro<<er- and develoBed 2ill a0 a 0u0Bect.
&he- =ent to 2illP0 aBartment and a man =ho .it 2illP0 de0criBtion an0=ered the door and admitted
the Bolice. &he man 0aid he =a0 4iller" not 2ill <ut the Bolice arre0ted him an-=a- and a 0earch
incident to arre0t di0clo0ed evidence that =a0 u0ed to convict 2ill at trial. 1t turned out that the man in
2illP0 Blace =a0 reall- 4iller. &he 5.S. SuBreme Court uBheld the 0earch" 0tating that although Mgood
.aithN alone =ould not have Ju0ti.ied the Bolice action" under the .act0 o. that ca0e" the Bolice mi0ta?e
=a0 o<Jectivel- rea0ona<le. 3ther e)amBle0 include a Bolice o..icer 0toBBing a car <a0ed on a
comButer entr- 0a-ing that the driver had an out0tanding =arrant =hen the =arrant had <een Aua0hed"
<ut that had not <een entered in the comButer <- the court cler?. ,riOona v. Evan0" 11% S.Ct. 11$%
I199%; Ierror not created <- Bolice; See al0o" 5.S. v. Sharee." 1++ (.3d 1491 I1+th Cir. 199*; and
5.S. v. Santa" 1$+ (.3d 2+ I2d Cir. 1999;. 8hen Bolice entered a re0idence <a0ed on con0ent .rom a
Ber0on =ho" a.ter Aue0tioning <- the o..icer0 aBBeared to have common authorit- over the Bremi0e0"
<ut =ho later on turned out not to have 0uch authorit-" the Bolice 0earch =a0 held valid in 1llinoi0 v.
!odrigueO" 11+ S. Ct. 2793 I199+; and Sn-der v. State" 1+3 Nev. 27% I19$7;. I,0 long a0 Bolice
ma?e a rea0ona<le e..ort to learn the current .act0: M8h- can thi0 Ber0on give con0entDN;. &he 0ame
rationale uBheld a 0earch in 4ar-land v. :arri0on" 1+7 S. Ct. 1+13 I19$7; =here Bolice had a 0earch
=arrant .or the 3rd .loor aBartment at a certain addre00. 1n .act" un?no=n to Bolice" the 3rd .loor had
<een divided into t=o 0eBarate aBartment0 and <oth =ere 0earched =ith drug0 <eing .ound in the
M=rongN aBartment. &he 5. S. SuBreme Court ruled Mno 0uBBre00ionN 0a-ing that the legalit- o. the
Bolice action had to <e <a0ed on the in.ormation availa<le to Bolice at the time o. the action9 the
- 144 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mi0ta?e occurred de0Bite rea0ona<le e..ort0 <- Bolice to inve0tigate and learn the correct .act0. M,
BolicemanP0 mi0ta?en <elie. o. .act can contri<ute to a /CC determination and can count Ju0t a0 much
a0 a correct <elie. a0 long a0 the mi0ta?en <elie. =a0 rea0ona<le in light o. all the circum0tance0.N
5.S. v. :onOale0" 9*9 (.2d 999 I11th Cir. 1992;. See al0o Stuart v. State INevada 197$; and 5.S. v.
,lvareO in 0ection on M8hat 10 !ea0ona<le Su0Bicion;. 14 K. M:33D (,1&2N M:ood .aithN i0 a term
=hich i0 o.ten u0ed <- Bolice and Bro0ecutor0 =ithout a .ull under0tanding o. =hether it helB0 avoid
0uBBre00ion o. evidence. &he <a0ic rule e0ta<li0hed <- the 5.S. SuBreme Court man- -ear0 ago i0 that
an o..icerP0 Mgood .aithN i0 irrelevant in deciding =hether or not there ha0 <een a 4th ,mendment
violation. &here are man- rea0on0 .or thi0 <a0ic rule" not the lea0t o. =hich i0 that it i0 imBo00i<le .or
a Judge or an-one el0e to read a Ber0onP0 mind. ,l0o" according to the 5.S. SuBreme Court" a Judge
deciding a motion to 0uBBre00 on 4th ,mendment ground0 mu0t u0e an o<Jective te0t. (lorida v.
Bo0tic?" 111 S.Ct. 23$2 I1991;. &here.ore" M0u<JectiveNor Mtrue inner <elie.N good .aith generall-
mean0 nothing.N1. 0u<Jective good .aith alone =ere the te0t the Brotection0 o. the 4th ,mendment
=ould evaBorate and BeoBle =ould <e 0ecure in their Ber0on0" hou0e0" BaBer0 and e..ect0 onl- in the
di0cretion o. the Bolice.N Bec? v. 3hio" 379 5.S. $9 I19*4;. 2o=ever" in a .e= 0ituation0" =hen there
i0 Mo<JectiveN or out=ardl- Brova<le good .aith <- a Bolice o..icer" the 5.S. SuBreme Court ha0 u0ed
the term Mgood .aithN to re0ult in admi00ion rather than 0uBBre00ion o. evidence. 1n 4ichigan v.
De(illiBo" 443 5.S. 31 I1979; and 1llinoi0 v. @rull" 4$+ 5.S. 34+ I19$7; Bolice o..icer0 made arre0t0
or 0earche0 acting Bur0uant to a 0tate 0tatute =hich =a0 later held <- the court0 to <e uncon0titutional.
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court uBheld the Bolice action in <oth ca0e0 <ecau0e o. the o..icerP0 reliance on
the 0tatute. 2o=ever" the Court noted that thi0 re0ult =ould not .ollo= i. Ia; the legi0lature =holl-
a<andoned it0 re0Bon0i<ilit- to enact con0titutional la=0 or I<; i. a rea0ona<l- =ell trained o..icer
0hould have ?no=n that the 0tatute =a0 uncon0titutional. 1n 5nited State0 v. 6eon" 4*$ 5.S. $97
- 145 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I19$4; the Court held that i. Bolice got a 0earch =arrant 0igned <- an imBartial Judge and the .act0
0u<mitted <- the Bolice in the a..idavit =ere true Iin the 0en0e that the- =ere not intentionall- or
rec?le00l- .al0e; then no 0uBBre00ion =ould occur even i. another Judge .ound a.ter the 0earch that
there =a0 not enough /CC. 3nce again" the Court limited thi0 to ca0e0 =here a rea0ona<l- =ell trained
o..icer =ould not have realiOed that there =a0 in0u..icient /CC. &he 6eon ca0e ha0 <een .ollo=ed in
0tate 0uBreme court0 on a ratio o. a<out .our to one. &he Nevada SuBreme Court cited 6eon in it0
deci0ion in /o=ell v. State" 113 Nev. 41 I1997;.
De.endant" charged =ith <oo?ma?ing" had 0ucce00.ull- moved to di0mi00 the indictment on the
ground0 that the Bolice and di0trict attorne- had a Bolic- not to arre0t or Bro0ecute <ettor0 =hile the-
arre0ted and Bro0ecuted <oo?ma?er0" although the 0tatute made it a crime to Blace a0 =ell a0 to
receive a <et. &he court 0aid that <a0ed on the record it =a0 clear that de.endant =a0 Bro0ecuted
<ecau0e 0he =a0 a <oo?ma?er and not a <ettor" and thu0 the Bro0ecuting authoritie0 di0criminatoril-
en.orced the Benal code again0t her. 2o=ever" the court 0aid that the 0elective en.orcement o. the
0tatute =a0 not <a0ed on an invidiou0 and unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard. &he court 0aid that a di0tinction
dra=n on the <a0i0 o. the di..erence in the ?ind o. criminal conduct" even though o. eAual culBa<ilit-
under the la=" =a0 neither 0u0Bect nor invidiou0. Stating that de.endant did not a00ert that 0he =a0
Bro0ecuted <ecau0e o. her race" religion" 0e)" or e)erci0e o. (ir0t ,mendment right0" the court 0aid
that 0he had thu0 not demon0trated that a<0ent the announced Bolic-" 0he =ould not have <een
Bro0ecuted. 1n /eoBle v 8inter0 I19%9; 171 Cal ,BB 2d SuBB $7*" 342 /2d %3$" the court rever0ed
the trial court>0 0ua 0Bonte di0mi00al" <- rea0on o. di0criminator- en.orcement" o. gam<ling charge0
<rought again0t de.endant0. &he trial court>0 <a0i0 .or 0o doing =a0 the court>0 corre0Bondence =ith
the Bolice chie. =hich indicated that gam<ling arre0t0 o. Negroe0 =ere 1+ time0 a0 numerou0 a0
- 146 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
gam<ling arre0t0 o. Cauca0ian0 even though Negroe0 con0tituted onl- 1+ Bercent o. the BoBulation.
Stating that di0criminator- la= en.orcement =ill not <e Bre0umed" and <e.ore it can <e e0ta<li0hed"
Broo. thereo. mu0t <e Judiciall- made" the court 0aid that the di0mi00al o. the action =a0 =ithout
Butting intentional di0crimination in i00ue. 1n ordering the trial o. de.endant to Broceed" the court 0aid
that that =a0 =ithout BreJudice to the right o. the de.endant" a0 a matter o. de.en0e" to a00ert and o..er
Broo. that an- conviction =ould den- him eAual Brotection o. the la=0 <ecau0e o. an- Broven
intentional or deli<erate di0crimination. Convicted o. variou0 violation0 o. the municiBal gam<ling
la=0" the de.endant in Davi0 v 5nited State0 I197$" Di0t Col ,BB; 39+ ,2d 97*" contended that the
Bro0ecution o. gam<ling ca0e0 in the Di0trict o. Colum<ia =a0 0elective and di0criminator- in that
there =ere no Bro0ecution0 .or Bo00e00ing 0o'called HlegalH lotter- tic?et0" 0uch a0 tho0e 0old <-
4ar-land. Stating that in order .or a de.endant to Brove di0criminator- en.orcement o. a valid 0tatute
there mu0t <e at lea0t a Brima .acie 0ho=ing that other0 0imilarl- 0ituated have not generall- <een
Broceeded again0t and that the di0criminator- Bro0ecution =a0 <a0ed on imBermi00i<le
con0ideration0" the court 0aid that the de.endant did not meet that <urden 0ince he did not allege a
di..erence in treatment <a0ed uBon a con0titutionall- 0u0Bect 0tandard <ut did no more than allege a
.ailure to Bro0ecute other0. Such a conclu0or- allegation" 0aid the court" =a0 in0u..icient =ithout
more. 1n Crea0h v State I193$; 131 (la 111" 179 So 149" in =hich de.endant0 =ere .ound guilt- o.
?eeBing and oBerating a gam<ling hou0e" the de.endant0 comBlained that the arre0ting o..icer0
e)hi<ited inordinant BreJudice again0t de.endant0" in that the- Bermitted other H<ingoH Blace0 to go
unmole0ted and to run =ide oBen at the time the- arre0ted de.endant0. &he court 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+
/age *7 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to
3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. 0aid that even i. that =a0 true" it =a0 not material to the ca0e. 1n 3a?land
Count- /ro0ecuting ,ttorne- v 4*th Kudicial Di0t. Kudge I1977; 7* 4ich ,BB 31$" 2%* N82d 77*"
- 147 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
de.endant0" charged =ith con0Birac- to violate the 0tate gam<ling 0tatute" claimed that the- had <een
0u<Jected to di0criminator- Bro0ecution <ecau0e no one el0e had <een Bro0ecuted .or engaging in
activitie0 0imilar to tho0e in =hich the- engaged" and al0o that the- had <een 0u<Jected to 0elective
Bro0ecution <ecau0e the Bro0ecutor 0a= .it to di0mi00 a0 again0t t=o o. the con0Birator0. Stating that
0electivit- and the en.orcement o. la=0 i0 not a violation o. eAual Brotection unle00 it i0 <a0ed uBon
race" religion" or 0ome other ar<itrar- cla00i.ication"
the court 0aid that intentional or BurBo0e.ul di0crimination =ill not <e Bre0umed and there mu0t <e an
a..irmative 0ho=ing o. clear and intentional di0crimination. 2olding that there had <een no 0uch
0ho=ing on the Bart o. an- o. the de.endant0" the court remanded the cau0e to the trial court. 1n
/eoBle v Shing I197%; $3 4i0c 2d 4*2" 371 N7S2d 322" the court denied de.endant0> motion to
di0mi00 the in.ormation0 on the ground o. 0elective and di0criminator- Bro0ecution. De.endant0" =ho
=ere o. Chine0e de0cent" =ere charged =ith the crime0 o. Bromoting gam<ling and Bo00e00ion o.
gam<ling device0. Noting that de.endant0 argued that the- had rea0on to <elieve that the- =ere <eing
undul- hara00ed <ecau0e o. their heritage" the court 0aid that to invo?e the de.en0e o. di0criminator-
Bro0ecution one mu0t Brove that the 0election o. the de.endant0 .or Bro0ecution =a0 deli<eratel-
<a0ed uBon their race or religion. &he court 0aid that it =a0 not enough to allege intentional and
BurBo0e.ul di0crimination" <ut the de.en0e mu0t Bre0ent .act0 0u..icient to rai0e a rea0ona<le dou<t
a<out the Bro0ecutor>0 BurBo0e. 2o=ever" the onl- allegation0 =ere that .ive or more grouB0 o.
,0iatic',merican0 =ere charged =ith violating the gam<ling 0tatute0 in a 3'month Beriod and that the
de.endant0 had rea0on to <elieve that there had not <een that 0ame num<er o. Bro0ecution0 .or tho0e
crime0 in the =hole <orough o. 4anhattan. Stating that even i. that =ere true" there =a0 no evidence
.rom =hich to conclude that the Bro0ecution0 =ere deli<eratel- di0criminator-" the court 0aid that
mere 0electivit- in Bro0ecution" in and o. it0el." created no con0titutional Bro<lem. C5456,&1#E
- 148 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: 1n Bro0ecution .or <oo?ma?ing o..en0e0 o. Ber0on0 involved in oBerating
neigh<orhood re0taurant0 and <ar0" trial court did not a<u0e di0cretion <- den-ing de.en0e motion .or
di0cover- o. documentar- evidence" allegedl- Bo00e00ed <- the Bro0ecution" to 0ho= di0criminator-
la= en.orcement" =here de.endant did not ma?e Brima .acie 0ho=ing o. 0elected Bro0ecution <a0ed
0olel- uBon geograBhic or 0ocio'economic .actor0. ,lthough it =a0 not nece00ar- that the Hcla00H
involved <e one again0t =hich there ha0 <een traditional or hi0toric di0crimination" na?ed allegation
that de.endant0 =ere mem<er0 o. cla00 o. local neigh<orhood <ar0 did not give ri0e to rational
in.erence o. 0elective la= en.orcement <a0ed on condemned invidiou0 criteria. /era?i0 v SuBerior
Court o. Santa Clara Count- I1979" 10t Di0t; 99 Cal ,BB 3d 73+" 1*+ Cal !Btr 44%. 1n Bro0ecution
.or attemBted di00emination o. gam<ling in.ormation" evidence that all o. the numerou0 arre0t0 under
0tatute in Barticular cit- had involved de.endant0 or their emBlo-ee0 and emBlo-er0 =a0 in0u..icient
to e0ta<li0h that 0tatute =a0 <eing di0criminatoril- en.orced. /eoBle v 4ilano I1979" 2d Di0t; $9 Cal
,BB 3d 1%3" 1%2 Cal !Btr 31$. 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ /age *$ 9% ,.6.!.3d 2$+ I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in
1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. Statute =hich criminaliOed
oBeration o. lotter- =hile e)emBting Bla-er0 .rom criminal re0Bon0i<ilit- did not 0uBBort oBerator>0
claim o. di0criminator- Bro0ecution in a<0ence o. evidence o. intentional or BurBo0e.ul
di0crimination in Bro0ecution0 under 0tatute. Common=ealth v Covert I19$3; 322 /a SuBer 192" 4*9
,2d 24$.'
Selective or di0criminator- Bro0ecution %7 C.K.S. 4ilitar- Ku0tice S 1%7 &o 0uBBort a de.en0e o.
0elective or di0criminator- Bro0ecution" a de.endant <ear0 the <urden o. e0ta<li0hing that he or 0he
ha0 <een 0ingled out .or Bro0ecution" and that the government>0 di0criminator- 0election o. him or her
.or Bro0ecution ha0 <een invidiou0 or in <ad .aith. &o 0uBBort a de.en0e o. 0elective or di0criminator-
- 149 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bro0ecution" a de.endant <ear0 a heav- <urden o. e0ta<li0hing" at lea0t Brima .acie" that he or 0he ha0
<een 0ingled out .or Bro0ecution =hile other0 0imilarl- 0ituated have not generall- <een Broceeded
again0t <ecau0e o. 0imilar conduct" and that the government>0 di0criminator- 0election o. him or her
.or Bro0ecution ha0 <een invidiou0 or in <ad .aith" i.e." <a0ed uBon imBermi00i<le con0ideration0 0uch
a0 race" religion" or the de0ire to e)erci0e con0titutional right0.Q1R Bare contention0 that other0 =ere
0imilarl- lia<le due to criminal activit-" <ut not Bro0ecuted" are in0u..icient to <ar good'.aith
Bro0ecution0.Q 2R &he con0ciou0 e)erci0e o. 0ome 0electivit- in en.orcement o. the la= i0 not in it0el.
a .ederal con0titutional violation.Q3R Even though 0tati0tic0 might 0uBBort an imBlication o. 0elective
en.orcement" there mu0t <e a .urther 0ho=ing that the 0election =a0 deli<eratel- <a0ed uBon an
unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard.Q4R Q(N1R C4,V5.S. v. 2agen" 2% 4.K. 7$ IC.4.,. 19$7;. :CC4!V5.S. v.
&atum" 17 4.K. 7%7 IC.:.C.4.!. 19$4;. N4C4!V5.S. v. :ar=ood" 1* 4.K. $*3 IN.4.C.4.!.
19$3;" deci0ion a..>d" 2+ 4.K. 14$ IC.4.,. 19$%;. CKS 4161&,!7 S 1%7 /age 1 %7 C.K.S. 4ilitar-
Ku0tice S 1%7 \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. Q(N2R N4C4!V5.S.
v. :ar=ood" 1* 4.K. $*3 IN.4.C.4.!. 19$3;" deci0ion a..>d" 2+ 4.K. 14$ IC.4.,. 19$%;. Q(N3R
C:C4!V5.S. v. &atum" 17 4.K. 7%7 IC.:.C.4.!. 19$4;. Q(N4R C:C4!V5.S. v. &atum" 17 4.K.
7%7 IC.:.C.4.!. 19$4;.
5ncooBerative =itne00 5.S.V5.S. v. @ehm" 799 (.2d 3%4" 21 (ed. !. Evid. Serv. 339 I7th Cir.
19$*;. Q(N2R 5.S.V5.S. v. !amireO" 7*% (.2d 43$ I%th Cir. 19$%;. ,la.VElmore v. State" 44% So.
2d 943 I,la. Crim. ,BB. 19$3;. ,riO.V 4urra- v. &horne-cro.t e) rel. ,riOona 2igh=a- DeBt.
4otor #ehicle Divi0ion" 131 ,riO. 1%*" *39 /.2d 34* ICt. ,BB. Div. 2 19$1;. Conn.VState v.
2a0?in0" 1$$ Conn. 432" 4%+ ,.2d $2$ I19$2;. CKS C!146,8 S 79 /age 2 22 C.K.S. Criminal 6a=
S 79 \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. :a.V6ee v. State" 177 :a. ,BB.
- 150 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*9$" 34+ S.E.2d *%$ I19$*;. 6a.VState v. Coleman" 4*% So. 2d 7+9 I6a. 19$%;. 4ich.V/eoBle v.
4onroe" 127 4ich. ,BB. $17" 339 N.8.2d 2*+ I19$3;. Ne<.VState v. SBrague" 213 Ne<. %$1" 33+
N.8.2d 739 I19$3;. N.2.VState v. 4onahan" 12% N.2. 17" 4$+ ,.2d $*3 I19$4;. !.1.VState v.
!icci" 7+4 ,.2d 21+ I!.1. 1997;. S.D.VState v. Secre0t" 331 N.8.2d %$+ IS.D. 19$3;. 22 C.K.S.
Criminal 6a= S 79 De.en0e0 and Circum0tance0 Barring /ro0ecution or Conviction C. 3..icial
,ction or 4i0conduct 3. Selective /ro0ecution or Di0criminator- En.orcement. &hi0 i0 0een in
Coughlin getting arre0ted .or &re0Ba00 on 11C12C11 =herea0 Nevada Court Service0 =a0 not:
httB:CC===.-outu<e.comC=atchDvEND1c/,<#e1g Coughlin .iled numerou0 Bolice reBort0 in thi0
regard" -et the !/D ha0 not re0Bonded in an- =a-. (urther" a0 0een in the attached 22 Bage letter
regarding N# Energ-" 8CS3 0ervice i00ue0 in eviction0" the !/D and 8CD, 0electivel- Bro0ecute0
in a retaliator- manner again0t tho0e a00erting their con0titutional right0. Coughlin reBorted <atterie0
commited again0t him to the !/D in variou0 Bolice reBort0" -et the !/D re.u0ed to inve0tigate or
charge an-one. 2o=ever" !ichard 2ill get0 Coughlin arre0ted .or Ja-=al?ing and 3(.icer 6oo? o. the
!/D <end0 over <ac?=ard0 and Bracticall- <rea?0 into the Jail in a Bathetic attemBt to 0erve a &/3
.or 21ll" and 2ill 0ho=ed uB to the 1C31C12 E)ten0ion hearing on hi0 0ill- &/3 and" o. cour0e"
=ithdre= it <ecau0e hi0 mal.ea0ance =a0 .inall- 0tarting to re.lect Boorl- on him. Kudge Schroeder
=a0 inaBBroBriate in 0creaming at Coughlin HDo -ou =ant to go to JailaH =hen Coughlin attemBted to
addre00 21ll>0 a<u0e o. Broce00 and <ad .aith aBBlication .or a &/3" meant onl- to Brevent Coughlin
.rom a00erting hi0 la=.ul right to collect evidence incident to 21ll>0 =rong.ul eviction
3..icer0 had Bro<a<le cau0e to arre0t de.endant .or ro<<er-9 o..icer0> receiving unit0 Bic?ed uB 0ignal
.rom tran0mitter .rom H<ait Bac?H o. currenc- =hich contained electronic tran0mitting device"
tran0mitter =a0 located in Bar?ed vehicle .rom =hich de.endant e)ited" de.endant .led to Bar?ing
- 151 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
garage =hen he 0a= o..icer0 aBBroaching vehicle" and one o..icer>0 handheld trac?ing device
indicated that <ait mone- tran0mitter =a0 on de.endant>0 Ber0on. 5.S.C.,. Con0t.,mend. 4. 5.S. v.
Bro=n" *3* (. SuBB. 2d 111* ID. Nev. 2++9;.
Si)th ,mendment violation can <e Bredicated uBon coun0el>0 de.ective reBre0entation o. de.endant in
connection =ith Bretrial Blea <argaining" and" under Stric?land" BreJudice can <e e0ta<li0hed i. there
i0 rea0ona<le Bro<a<ilit- that guilt- Blea =ould have en0ued. 5.S.C.,. Con0t. ,mend. *. 5.S. v.
/rice" 237 (. SuBB. 2d 1 ID.D.C. 2++2;.
Nev."1973 ,00uming =ithout deciding that Blainti.." =ho =a0 chie. accountant o. cit-" =a0 not
reAuired to regi0ter a0 an e)'.elon <ecau0e hi0 Cali.ornia conviction had <een e)Bunged" and that he
there.ore =a0 not committing a mi0demeanor in the Bre0ence o. o..icer0 <- not regi0tering" o..icer0
=ere Brotected .rom civil 0uit .or .al0e imBri0onment .ollo=ing a .al0e arre0t <- 0tatute Broviding that
no action ma- <e <rought again0t an- Beace o..icer unle00 an act or omi00ion amount0 to gro00
negligence or to =ill.ul and =anton mi0conduct" =here there =a0 no 0ho=ing o. gro00 negligence or
=anton mi0conduct 0ince" inter alia" there =a0 no evidence that o..icer0 intended to do harm. N.!.S.
41.+34" 2+7.+$+'2+7.1%+. (ormerl- 4$,?349I4;" 4$,?349" 3%?*3.1" 3%?*3I1; Nev."1972 3..icer0
=ho ?ne= that licen0e Blate0 on vehicle containing de.endant =ere 0tolen acted BroBerl- =hen the-
0toBBed and aBBroached de.endant and hi0 comBanion" =ho alleged that onl- the 2igh=a- /atrol had
the dut- to en.orce 0tatute relating to licen0e Blate0" and that local Bolice could not inve0tigate =hen
an evident mi0demeanor involving Bo00e00ion and u0e o. 0tolen licen0e Blate0 =a0 committed in their
Bre0ence. N.!.S. 171.124" 0u<d. 1Ia;" 4$2.%4%.
- 152 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1n /eoBle v 8al?er I19**; %+ 4i0c 2d 7%1" 271 N7S2d 447" the court held that the de.endant had
demon0trated" <- a clear BreBonderance o. evidence" that 0he =a0 0ingled out .or criminal Bro0ecution
<- an intentional" BurBo0e.ul" and unu0ual 0election Broce00. &he court 0aid that the manner o.
Bro0ecution =a0 not the 0ame a0 u0uall- emBlo-ed and =a0 in 0harB contra0t to the then'e)i0ting
Battern o. en.orcement o. hou0ing la=0. &he court 0aid that the time allo=ed to de.endant .or
correction o. hou0ing violation0 =a0 0o unrea0ona<l- 0hort a0 to ma?e correction imBo00i<le and
criminal conviction a certaint-. Concluding that the evidence led irre0i0ti<l- to the conclu0ion that the
intentional di0criminator- Bro0ecution =a0 in retaliation .or de.endant>0 Bu<lic e)Bo0ure o. corruBtion
in the deBartment o. <uilding0" the court held that the evidence reAuired di0mi00al o. the Bro0ecution
on the ground that de.endant =a0 deBrived o. her con0titutional right to eAual Brotection o. la=0. 7QeR
1nvidiou0ne00 or ar<itrarine00 o. Barticular <a0i0 .or 0electionQ^RV#indictivene00 to=ard de.endant
QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e" the court held that Ber0onal vindictivene00 on the
Bart o. the Bro0ecutor to=ard the de.endant =ould con0titute an invidiou0 <a0i0 .or 0election o. the
de.endant .or Bro0ecution. 1n 5nited State0 v BourAue I197*" C,1 !1; %41 (2d 29+" the court 0tated
that Ber0onal vindictivene00 on the Bart o. a Bro0ecutor to=ard the de.endant =ould 0u0tain a charge
o. di0crimination. 2o=ever" the court held that the de.endant .ailed to ma?e a 0u<0tantial 0ho=ing
that the Bro0ecution0 =ere not normall- in0tituted .or the o..en0e =ith =hich the de.endant =a0
charged" and thu0 a..irmed hi0 conviction .or violation0 o. the .ederal internal revenue la=0.
C5456,&1#E S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: 1n Bro0ecution o. mem<er o. Congre00 .or <ri<er- o..en0e"
motion to di0mi00 indictment" <a0ed uBon" inter alia" allegation o. 0elective Bro0ecution" =a0 BroBerl-
denied =here Blainti.. had made no claim that other0 0imilarl- 0ituated had not een Bro0ecuted" nor
- 153 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
had he 0uBBlied an- 0uBBort .or conclu0or- allegation that he =a0 Hdi0.avoredH legi0lator9 to 0hi.t to
:overnment <urden o. Broving that deci0ion to Bro0ecute i0 .ree o. di0criminator- taint" de.endant
mu0t 0ho= that" =hile other0 0imilarl- 0ituated have not generall- <een Broceeded again0t <ecau0e o.
conduct o. t-Be .orming <a0i0 o. charge again0t him" he ha0 <een 0ingled out .or Bro0ecution and that
:overnment>0 di0criminator- 0election o. him .or Bro0ecution ha0 <een invidiou0 or in <ad .aith.
5nited State0 v 4-er0 I19$+" C,2 N7; *3% (2d 932" cert den 449 5S 9%*" ** 6 Ed 2d 221" 1+1 S Ct
3*4. 1n Bro0ecution0 .or con0Biring to violate civil right0 o. .ederal =itne00 I<- ?illing him to Brevent
him .rom te0ti.-ing again0t de.endant0;" de.endant0> motion to di0mi00 indictment on ground o.
0elective en.orcement =ould <e denied" de0Bite evidence o. variou0 magaOine and ne=0BaBer reBort0
and other hear0a- 0tatement0 <- individual0 =ho allegedl- had 0Bo?en =ith agent0 o. (ederal Bureau
o. 1nve0tigation" to e..ect that agent0 had 0aid that the- had to remove de.endant .rom 0treet0" 0ince
0uch evidence =ould not 0uBBort de.en0e o. 0elective en.orcement in that de.endant had .ailed to
0ho= that he had <een 0ingled out .or Bro0ecution" =hile other0" 0imilarl- 0ituated" had not <een
Bro0ecuted" and that :overnment>0 determination to Bro0ecute him had <een made in <ad .aith9
.urther" con0ciou0 e)erci0e o. 0ome 0electivit- doe0 not violate de.endant>0 right0. 5nited State0 v
Bu.alino I19$1" SD N7; %1$ ( SuBB 119+. 4% ,.6.!. (ed. 732 /age 4* 4% ,.6.!. (ed. 732
I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12 &hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0.
/ro0ecution i0 not vindictive a0 long a0 Bro0ecutor>0 deci0ion i0 <a0ed uBon normal .actor0 ordinaril-
con0idered in determining =hat cour0e to Bur0ue" rather than uBon genuine animu0 again0t de.endant
.or imBroBer rea0on or in retaliation .or e)erci0e o. legal or con0titutional right0. 5.S. v. De4ichael"
*92 (.2d 1+%9 I7th Cir. 19$2;. 1n criminal Bro0ecution" de.endant>0 motion to di0mi00 indictment on
<a0i0 o. alleged Bro0ecutorial vindictivene00 in <ringing 0econd charge =ould <e denied 0ince court
.ound no evidence o. actual Bro0ecutorial vindictivene00 in re0Bon0e to de.endant>0 reAue0t .or change
- 154 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o. venue and record 0uBBorted .act that Bro0ecution had made initial deci0ion to <ring charge0 in
certain di0trict" in0tead o. in t=o di0trict0" on <a0i0 o. convenience" economic0 and Bro0ecutorial
re0ource0" and that once ca0e had <een tran0.erred" rea0on0 .or <ringing 0econd charge =ere
legitimate and did not mani.e0t BurBo0e.ul governmental retaliation or de.endant0> e)erci0e o. legal
right9 given legitimate nonvindictive rea0on .or returning 0econd indictment" court 0hould not
inter.ere =ith Bro0ecutor>0 e)erci0e o. di0cretion unle00 determination o. actual vindictivene00 ha0
<een made. 5.S. v. 4ulherin" %29 (. SuBB 91* IS.D. :a. 19$1;" Judgment a..>d" 71+ (.2d 731 I11th
Cir. 19$3;. Selective Bro0ecution and vindictive Bro0ecution are not de.en0e0 on the merit0 to the
criminal charge <ut indeBendent a00ertion0 that the Bro0ecutor ha0 <rought the charge .or rea0on0 that
the Con0titution Brohi<it0. E) Barte Xuintana" 34* S.8.3d *$1 I&e). ,BB. El /a0o 2++9;" reh>g
overruled" I3ct. 2$" 2++9; and Betition .or di0cretionar- revie= re.u0ed" I4ar. 24" 2+1+;. Q&oB o.
SectionR QEND 3( S5//6E4EN&R S 7Q.R 1nvidiou0ne00 or ar<itrarine00 o. Barticular <a0i0 .or
0electionQ^RV!ace QCumulative SuBBlementR 1n the .ollo=ing ca0e" it =a0 held that i. the de.endant
=ere 0elected .or Bro0ecution on the <a0i0 o. hi0 race" the de.en0e o. di0criminator- en.orcement
=ould <e e0ta<li0hed. 1n 5nited State0 v ,lle-ne I197$" SD N7; 4%4 ( SuBB 11*4" the court 0tated
that allegation0 o. 0election .or Bro0ecution on the <a0i0 o. race" i. Broved" =ould e0ta<li0h a de.en0e
o. illegal 0elective en.orcement. &he de.endant" charged =ith a violation o. la=0 .or the Brotection
and regulation o. naviga<le =ater0" contended that he =a0 di0criminatoril- 0elected .or en.orcement
<ecau0e o. hi0 race. &he de.endant" the onl- <lac? Ber0on in hi0 area" =ho =a0 di0charging .ill"
0u<mitted BhotograBh0 Bortra-ing allegedl- illegal di0charge o. .ill into a river <- =hite BeoBle
adJacent to hi0 BroBert-. &he de.endant 0tated that the other Bartie0 in hi0 area =ho had not <een
Bro0ecuted .or violation0 =ere =hite. &ho0e allegation0 i. Broved" the court 0aid" =ould e0ta<li0h a
de.en0e o. di0criminator- Bro0ecution. ,ccordingl-" the court held that an evidentiar- hearing =a0
- 155 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=arranted to a..ord the de.endant the oBBortunit- to 0u<0tantiate hi0 claim. C5456,&1#E
S5//6E4EN& Ca0e0: &rial court erred in re.u0ing to aBBl- #irgin 10land0 ha<itual criminal 0tatute
0ince" a<0ent 4% ,.6.!. (ed. 732 /age 47 4% ,.6.!. (ed. 732 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. Broo. that 0elective en.orcement comBlained
o. =a0 deli<eratel- <a0ed on unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard" Bro0ecutor had <road di0cretion in en.orcing
ha<itual criminal 0tatute" and record did not 0ugge0t that either Judge or de.endant had charged
Bro0ecutor =ith 0elective en.orcement o. 0tatute on <a0i0 o. race" religion" or other ar<itrar-
cla00i.ication. :overnment o. #irgin 10land0 v. David" 741 (.2d *%3 I3d Cir. 19$4;. &o Brevail on
0elective Bro0ecution theor- in criminal Bro0ecution" de.endant mu0t 0ho= that :overnment>0
deci0ion to <ring action 0Brang .rom either invidiou0 di0crimination or intent to Buni0h de.endant .or
e)erci0e o. .undamental right. 5nited State0 v 6e=i0 I19$1" 4D /a; %14 ( SuBB 1*9.
HDi0criminator- e..ect"H .or BurBo0e0 o. a 0elective Bro0ecution claim" i0 demon0trated <-
e0ta<li0hing that 0imilarl- 0ituated individual0 o. a di..erent race =ere not Bro0ecuted. 5.S. Con0t.
,mend. #. 5.S. v. 4inerd" 1$2 (. SuBB. 2d 4%9 I8.D. /a. 2++2;. &o e0ta<li0h a 0elective Bro0ecution
claim" a de.endant mu0t 0ho= that the Bro0ecution had a di0criminator- e..ect and that it =a0
motivated <- a di0criminator- intent9 thi0 reAuire0 the de.endant to e0ta<li0h <oth I1; that 0imilarl-
0ituated individual0 o. a di..erent race =ere not Bro0ecuted" and I2; that the deci0ion to Bro0ecute =a0
invidiou0 or in <ad .aith. Kohn0on v. 3utla=" *%9 (. SuBB. 2d 732 I4.D. N.C. 2++9;. , Bro0ecutor>0
di0cretion i0 0u<Ject to con0titutional con0traint09 the deci0ion =hether to Bro0ecute ma- not <e <a0ed
on an unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard 0uch a0 race" religion" or other ar<itrar- cla00i.ication. 5.S. v. KeanBierre"
*3* (.3d 41* I$th Cir. 2+11;. , de.endant ma- <ring a 0elective Bro0ecution claim <a0ed 0olel- on
the race o. hi0 victim9 to e0ta<li0h a di0criminator- e..ect in a raceWo.WtheWvictim ca0e" he mu0t 0ho=
that 0imilarl- 0ituated individual0 =ho0e victim0 =ere o. a di..erent race =ere not Bro0ecuted.
- 156 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Belmonte0 v. 8ood.ord" 3%+ (.3d $*1 I9th Cir. 2++3;. &he di0criminator-'e..ect element in a ca0e
alleging 0elective en.orcement o. the la= reAuire0 a credi<le 0ho=ing that a 0imilarl- 0ituated
individual o. another race could have <een" <ut =a0 not" 0toBBed or arre0ted .or the o..en0e .or =hich
de.endant =a0 0toBBed or arre0ted. 5.S. v. ,lcaraO',rellano" 441 (.3d 12%2 I1+th Cir. 2++*;. ,.rican
,merican inmate0 =ho =ere indicted .or alleged a00ault on Native ,merican inmate .ailed to 0ho=
that 0imilarl- 0ituated individual0 o. another race =ere not Bro0ecuted" a0 reAuired to 0ho=
di0criminator- e..ect .or BurBo0e0 o. o<taining 0elective'Bro0ecution di0cover-" =here government
e)Blained at di0cover- hearing that it al0o intended to Bro0ecute Native ,merican inmate0 =ho
allegedl- a00aulted ,.rican ,merican inmate .ollo=ing .ir0t alleged a00ault" government indicted
Native ,merican inmate0 a.ter Di0trict Court ruled on di0cover- motion" dela- in indictment o.
Native ,merican inmate0 did not nece00aril- indicate the- =ere treated
more .avora<l-" and a<0ence o. videotaBe o. latter alleged a00ault reAuired more BreBaration .or trial.
5.S.C.,. Con0t.,mend. %. 5.S. v. De<err-" 43+ (.3d 1294 I1+th Cir. 2++%;. See 5nited State0 v
Kohn0on I1991" DC Colo; 7*% ( SuBB *%$" S 12. &o Brove di0criminator- e..ect in raceW<a0ed
0elective en.orcement claim" de.endant mu0t either ma?e credi<le 0ho=ing that 0imilarl- 0ituated
individual o. another race could have <een 0toBBed .or tra..ic violation" <ut =a0 not" or de.endant
mu0t 0ho= di0criminator- e..ect through u0e o. 0tati0tical evidence. 5.S. v. 6ind0e-" 2$$ (. SuBB. 2d
119* ID. @an. 2++3;. , Bro0ecutor>0 di0cretion i0 0u<Ject to con0titutional con0traint09 the deci0ion
=hether to Bro0ecute ma- not <e <a0ed on an unJu0ti.ia<le 0tandard 0uch a0 race" religion" or other
ar<it' 4% ,.6.!. (ed. 732 /age 4$ 4% ,.6.!. (ed. 732 I3riginall- Bu<li0hed in 1979; \ 2+12
&hom0on !euter0. No Claim to 3rig. 5S :ov. 8or?0. rar- cla00i.ication. 5.S. v. Sha-gan" *%2 (.3d
1297 I11th Cir. 2+11;. (act that =hite inmate" 0entenced to death .or commi00ion o. aggravated
murder0 during 0ame Bri0on riot in =hich ,.ricanW,merican de.endant committed murder0 =ith
- 157 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=hich he =a0 charged" ?illed <oth other inmate0 and Bri0on guard0" =hile de.endant ?illed onl- other
inmate0" did not mean that =hite inmate =a0 not 0imilarl- 0ituated =ith de.endant" .or BurBo0e0 o.
anal-0i0 o. de.endant>0 claim that he =a0 imBroBerl- 0ingled out .or caBital Bro0ecution <a0ed on
race. State v. 6a4ar" 2++2'3hio'212$" 9% 3hio St. 3d 1$1" 7*7 N.E.2d 1** I2++2;. onviction0 .or
.irearm0 violation0 =ould <e a..irmed" de0Bite de.endant>0 contention that he had <een 0u<Jected to
vindictive Bro0ecution" 0ince vindictive Bro0ecution u0uall- involve0 retaliator- imBo0ition o.
additional Benaltie0 again0t de.endant =ho e)erci0e0 legal right" and de.endant did not allege that
indictment0 had <een .iled to di0courage him .rom" or Buni0h him .or" e)erci0ing con0titutional"
0tatutor-" or common la= right. 5nited State0 v 4c8illiam0 I19$4" C,9 Cal; 73+ (2d 121$.,.ter
rever0al <- Court o. ,BBeal0 o. conviction o. immigration in0Bector on .our count0 o. .orging
immigration document0" uBon reindictment o. de.endant on original .our count0" Blu0 additional
count o. con0Birac- to .orge document0" trial court BroBerl- di0mi00ed con0Birac- count on <a0i0 o.
Bre0umBtion o. vindictivene00 0ince 0uBer0eding indictment" o<tained immediatel- a.ter de.endant>0
0ucce00.ul aBBeal o. .ir0t conviction" created aBBrehen0ion o. retaliation again0t de.endant .or
e)erci0ing right to aBBeal and Bro0ecution .ailed to di0Bel aBBearance o. vindictivene00 <- e)Blaining
increa0ed charge0 <- re.erence to ne=l-'di0covered .act0 or evidence. 5nited State0 v @reOdorn
I19$3" C,% &e); 71$ (2d 13*+" cert den I5S; 79 6 Ed 2d 742" 1+4 S Ct 141*. DD, Zach 7oung"
E0A. clearl- had a hi00- .it =hen De.endant Coughlin 0erved him =ith a N!C/ 11 21 da- 0a.e har<or
0anction0 4otion. (urther" =hile D/D :oodnight ha0 told Coughlin N!C/ 11 doe0 not aBBl- in
criminal 0etting0" D/D :oodnight Auoted the Hnot <a0ed in .act or la= languageH .rom N!C/ 11
<ac? to Coughlin in citing hi0 Ju0ti.ication .or .ailing to .ile 0ome HBro0ecutorial mi0conductH motion
or charge again0t D/D 7oung.
- 158 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Due to D/D>0 :oodnight" 2-lin" and 6e0ie aBBroach" De.endant Coughlin i0 <eing denied hi0 Si)th
,mendment !ight to Coun0el" though all three o. tho0e gentleman are not <eing denied their health-
Ba-chec?0 in an- =a-" nor their <ene.it0 Bac?age0.
S&3/ ,ND (!1S@ I1N#ES&1:,&1#E DE&EN&13N;: 41D6E#E6
C3N&,C&
I1; &2E &E!!7 C,SE ,ND NE#,D, S&,&5&ES:
1n 19*$ the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid in &err- v. 3hio" 392 5.S. 1 I19*$; that
Bolice could 0toB Iconduct an inve0tigative detention =here the 0u0Bect =a0 not .ree to
leave; a Ber0on <a0ed on Harticula<le and rea0ona<le 0u0BicionH that the Ber0on Hi0
committing" ha0 committed or i0 a<out to commit a crime"H even =here there i0 not
Bro<a<le cau0e .or an arre0t.
1. there i0 rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion in addition to that =hich Ju0ti.ie0 the 0toB =hich
cau0e0 -ou to <elieve the 0u0Bect ma- <e armed" -ou can Bat do=n clothing .or =eaBon0.
Ku0t <ecau0e H0toBH i0 legal and <a0ed on rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion doe0n>t automaticall- mean
that H.ri0?H i0 3@ too. Si<ron v. Ne= 7or?" 392 5.S. 4+ I19*$;.
&err- i0 codi.ied in N.!.S. 171.123 a0 .ollo=0:
171.123 &emBorar- detention <- Beace o..icer o. Ber0on 0u0Bected o. criminal
<ehavior: 6imitation0.
1. ,n- Beace o..icer ma- detain an- Ber0on =hom 0uch o..icer
encounter0 under circum0tance0 =hich rea0ona<l- indicate that 0uch
- 159 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ber0on ha0 committed" i0 committing or i0 a<out to commit a crime.
2. &he o..icer ma- detain 0uch Ber0on onl- to a0certain the
identit- o. 0uch Ber0on and the 0u0Biciou0 circum0tance0 0urrounding hi0
Bre0ence a<road. ,n- Ber0on 0o detained 0hall identi.- him0el." <ut ma-
not <e comBelled to an0=er another inAuir- o. an- Beace o..icer.
3. No Ber0on ma- <e detained longer than i0 rea0ona<l- nece00ar-
to e..ect the BurBo0e o. thi0 0ection" and in no event longer than *+
minute0. Such detention 0hall not e)tend <e-ond the Blace or the
immediate vicinit- o. the Blace =here the detention =a0 .ir0t e..ected.
I19*9" B.%3%9 1973" B.%97" 197%;.
171.1232 Search to a0certain Bre0ence o. dangerou0 =eaBon9 0eiOure o. =eaBon or
evidence.
1. 1. an- Beace o..icer rea0ona<l- <elieve0 that an- Ber0on =hom
he ha0 detained or i0 a<out to detain Bur0uant to N!S 171.123 i0 armed
=ith a dangerou0 =eaBon and i0 a threat to the 0a.et- o. the Beace o..icer
or another" the Beace o..icer ma- 0earch 0uch Ber0on to the e)tent
rea0ona<l- nece00ar- to a0certain the Bre0ence o. 0uch =eaBon. 1. the
0earch di0clo0e0 a =eaBon or an- evidence o. a crime" 0uch =eaBon or
evidence ma- <e 0eiOed.
&he Aue0tion ari0e0 a0 to =hether the Bolice" during a M&err- t-Be 0toBN can
la=.ull- reAuire that the Ber0on identi.- him or her 0el.. 1n ,dam0 v. 8illiam0" 4+7 5.S.
143 I1972; =here the court .ound that a 0eiOure o. the Ber0on had occurred" the court
imBlied that Aue0tioning a0 to the Ber0onP0 identit- and a reAue0t .or identi.ication =ere
- 160 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
not in violation o. the 4th ,mendment.
1n Bro=n v. &e)a0" 443 5.S. 47 I1979; the Bolice arre0ted Bro=n =hen he
re.u0ed to identi.- him0el.. 2o=ever" the Court noted that the inve0tigative 0toB o.
Bro=n =a0 invalid <ecau0e Bolice had no rea0on to 0toB him. &he reAue0t .or
identi.ication" re.u0al and arre0t =ere M.ruit0 o. the Boi0oned tree.N 1n @olander v.
6a=0on" 4*1 5.S. 3%2 I19$3; a Cali. 0tate la= reAuired a Ber0on la=.ull- 0toBBed <-
Bolice to Broduce a Mcredi<le and relia<le id.N &he Court held that thi0 language =a0
uncon0titutionall- vague. Neither ca0e held that it =a0 uncon0titutional .or Bolice to
reAuire identi.ication .rom a Ber0on in a la=.ul M&err- StoB.N
1n 4artinelli v. Cit- o. Beaumont" $2+ (.2d 491 I9th Cir. 19$7; the court ruled
that o..icer0 had rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion to 0toB the Ber0on" <ut the Cali.. Statute allo=ing
arre0t i. the Ber0on re.u0ed to identi.- him0el. =a0 uncon0titutional. &he 9th Circuit Court
erroneou0l- con0trued the 5.S. SuBreme CourtP0 deci0ion in @olander v. 6a=0on to
Ju0ti.- thi0 ruling even though it i0 clear that the 5.S. SuBreme Court ha0 never decided
thi0 Aue0tion.
1n ,l<right v. !odrigueO" %1 (.3d 1%31 I1+th Cir. 199%; the court ruled that i.
Bolice made a valid &err- 0toB" and the Ber0on re.u0ed to identi.- him0el." and i. there
=a0 a 0tate 0tatute =hich allo=ed Bolice to arre0t .or .ailure to identi.-" then the reAue0t
.or identi.ication" re.u0al and arre0t =a0 con0titutionall- valid.
1n State v. (l-nn" 2$% N.8. 2d 71+ I8i0c. 1979;" cert. denied 449 5.S. $4* the
Court noted language in ,dam0 v. 8illiam0 a 0toB and .ri0? ca0e =here the SuBreme
Court 0aid that the o..icer in a <rie.Ivalid; 0toB Min order to determine Ithe 0u0BectP0;
- 161 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
identit-..ma- <e mo0t rea0ona<le.N &he (l-nn court noted that unle00 the o..icer i0
entitled to a0certain the identit- o. the 0u0Bect" the &err- 0toB can 0erve no u0e.ul
BurBo0e. Same ruling in 5.S. v. Ba0e-" $1* (.2d 9$+ I%th Cir. 19$7;" State v. 6andr-"
%$$ So.2d 34%I6a. 1991;.
1n 5.S. v. #anicromanee" 742 (.2d 34+ I7th Cir. 19$4; the Court held that mere
detention i0 not an arre0t9 a Bolice o..icer ma-" 0hort o. an arre0t" detain an individual
<rie.l- in order to determine hi0 identit- momentaril- =hile o<taining more
in.ormation i. the o..icer ha0 articula<le .act0 0u..icient to give ri0e to !CS that the Ber0on
had committed or i0 committing a crime.
&he Nevada SuBreme Court ha0 not ruled on thi0 i00ue although a reAuirement .or
identi.ication i0 in N!S 171.123. &he ca0e0 o. Bro=n v. &e)a0 and @olander v
6a=0on do not rule on the identit- reAuirement in N!S 171.123 I0ee detailed e)Blanation
in ,l<right v. !odrigueO;.
5ntil the Nevada SuBreme Court rule0 on thi0 i00ue" Bolice o..icer0 0hould <e
0elective in arre0ting .or .ailure to 1D =ith .actor0 0uch a0 the 0trength o. the articula<le
0u0Bicion .or the 0toB and the t-Be o. crime 0u0Bected. (or e)amBle i. Bolice 0ee a Ber0on
continuou0l- hanging around a grade 0chool =ith minor children Bre0ent. a &err- 0toB i0
valid. 1. the Ber0on ha0 a Brior record .or mole0tation o. minor children it =ould <e
deva0tating .or the communit- i. the Bolice o..icer =a0 not Bermitted to reAue0t
identi.ication.
, related i00ue a<out Bolice o<taining identi.ication during a valid &err- StoB i0
=hether Bolice can Bat do=n or 0earch the Ber0on .or documenta<le 1D 0uch a0 driverP0
- 162 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
licen0e. &he ca0e0 in thi0 area are .e= and the validit- o. the Bractice i0 uncertain.
1n /eoBle v. 6ong" 2%4 Cal. !Btr. 4$3 I19$7;" the o..icer had !CS to 0toB 6ong in
a <ar =here he =a0 =ith an under aged girl. &he o..icer a0?ed .or 1D and 6ong 0tated hi0
name <ut 0aid he didnPt have an- 1D. &he o..icer noted a =allet 0iOed <ulge in hi0 rear
Bant0 Boc?et" again a0?ed .or =ritten 1D and 6ong 0aid he had none. &he o..icer directed
6ong to loo? through hi0 =allet" =hich 6ong did" and the o..icer 0a= 0ome Bla0tic
<aggie0 containing drug0. &he Court uBheld the o..icerP0 demand .or =ritten 1D" citing
(l-nn and ,dam0 v. 8illiam0. Same ruling in /eoBle v. 6oudermil?" 194 Cal. ,BB.3d
447 I19$7; =here an o..icer had !CS to 0toB a Ber0on 0u0Bected o. .iring a gun. /at do=n
.elt =allet <ut Ber0on re.u0ed to 1D" and in 2arBer v. State" %32 So. 2d 1+91 I(la. 19$$;.
1n State v. (raOier" 31$ N.8. 2d 42 I4inn. 19$2; an o..icer 0toBBed a Ber0on and
too? her Bur0e and reached in to get 1D and .ound a gun. &he gun =a0 0uBBre00ed
<ecau0e the court ruled that 0uch a 0earch =a0 uncon0titutional =ithout giving the
detainee an oBBortunit- to voluntaril- Broduce 1D.
I2; 82,& C3NS&1&5&ES , HS&3/H ,S 3//3SED &3 MN3NSE1Z5!EDN
&he 2odari D. ca0e and the Bo0tic? ca0e de.ine the Bre'0toB or Bre'0eiOure area.
!emem<er a H&err- 0toBH i0 a .orm o. 0eiOure ' the Ber0on i0 not .ree to go. Dra=ing the
line <et=een a HBo0tic? encounterH and a H&err- 0toBH ha0 to <e done on a ca0e <- ca0e
<a0i0. !emem<er" the de.en0e la=-er =ill tr- to Bu0h the time o. the H&err- 0toBH a0
earl- a0 Bo00i<le in the contact =hen the o..icer ha0 le00 articula<le 0u0Bicion" hoBing to
Ber0uade the court that -ou made an illegal &err- 0toB and i. 0o" =iBing out -our ca0e
=ith a .ruit o. /.&. argument.
C,SE EZ,4/6ES:
- 163 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. 5. S. v. :arcia" $** (.2d 147 I*th Cir. 19$9;" an imBortant .actor in
di0tingui0hing 0eiOure0 .rom ca0ual contact0 i0 =hen the Ber0on i0 a0?ed to accomBan-
the Bolice to a Blace =here the Ber0on had not Blanned to go. ,n o..icer ma- aBBroach a
traveler in an airBort and a0? to 0Bea? to him" and continue that conver0ation until a
rea0ona<le Ber0on =ould no longer .eel that the Ber0on =a0 .ree to go. 3nce that Boint
ha0 <een reached" the o..icer mu0t have a rea0ona<le articula<le 0u0Bicion" or el0e the
0toB or detention i0 illegal" and .ruit0 o. that 0earch mu0t <e 0uBBre00ed. :arcia =a0 not
0eiOure <ecau0e Hthere =ere onl- t=o agent0 Bre0ent" no =eaBon =a0 di0Bla-ed" he =a0
not Bh-0icall- touched " and the agent0 did not rai0e their voice0 or threaten him in an-
=a-.H
2. 5.S. v. :la00" 12$ (.3d 139$ I1+th Cir. 1997; ha0 0ome .actor0 that court0 u0e
in determining =hether a Bolice'citiOen contact i0 a 0eiOure. &he0e .actor0 include:
Ia; &elling a Ber0on that he i0 a 0u0Bect .or a Barticular t-Be o. crime
I<; &he num<er o. o..icer0 that are Bre0ent
Ic; 4oving the conver0ation .rom Bu<lic to Brivate Blace or =hether the contact
43
i0 in a Bu<lic or Brivate Blace
Id; 8hether the Ber0on i0 told that he need not tal? to the o..icer0
Ie; 8hether the Ber0onP0 egre00 =a0 <loc?ed
3. 5.S. v. @im" 27 (.3d 947 I3rd Cir. 1994; utiliOing e00entiall- the 0ame .actor0
in the :la00 ca0e =hich had <een related in earlier 5S Circuit Court ca0e0 held that none
o. the0e .actor0 alone i0 determinative regarding =hether a 4th ,mendment 0eiOure o. the
Ber0on occur0.
- 164 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. , .e= .ederal ca0e0 IBre Bo0tic?; gave 0trong =eight in their anal-0i0 o.
0eiOure to a Bolice o..icerP0 a0?ing directl- incriminating and .ocu0ed Aue0tion0" almo0t to
the Boint o. Ber 0e rule ma?ing 0uch contact0 a 0eiOure. 5. S. v. Nunle-" $73 (.2d 1$2
I$th Cir.19$9; 5.S. v. Karamillo" $91 (.2d *2+ I7th Cir.19$9; 2o=ever" Nunle- =a0
modi.ied <- 5.S. v. /erdue" 9*1 (.2d 723 I$th Cir. 1992; and Karamillo =a0 rever0ed <-
5.S. v. 3rnela0'6ede0ma" 1* (.3d 714 I7th Cir. 1994;IBoth Bo0t Bo0tic? ca0e0;.
%. 5.S. v. CardoOa" 129 (.3d * I10t Cir 1997; De.endant =a0 not H0eiOedH =ithin
meaning o. (ourth ,mendment <e.ore Bolice 0a= him =ith contra<and" even though
Bolice crui0er turned =rong =a- uB one'=a- 0treet" ma?ing clear o..icer>0 intent to come
into contact =ith him" and o..icer0 a0?ed him =hat he =a0 doing out at that time9
rea0ona<le Ber0on =ould not have concluded that he =a0 not .ree to leave" a0 o..icer0 did
not u0e .la0hing light0 or 0iren0" and o..icer0 did not a0? de.endant to 0toB" or even to
aBBroach Batrol car. &he re0ult" there.ore" Mi0 the directive that Bolice conduct" vie=ed
.rom the totalit- o. the circum0tance0" mu0t o<Jectivel- communicate that the o..icer i0
e)erci0ing o..icial authorit- to re0train the individual>0 li<ert- o. movement <e.ore =e
can .ind a 0eiOure occurred.N
*. 5.S. v. !odrigueO'(ranco" 749 (.2d 1%%% I11th Cir. 19$%;" held that 1NS
agent0 aBBroached a grouB o. H2i0Banic loo?ingH Ber0on0 in a mall and a0?ed Aue0tion0
a<out citiOen0hiB and a0?ed Inot commanding; t=o Ber0on0 to 0teB over to a <ench there
=a0 no &err- 0toB. I&hi0 t-Be o. Bolice Brocedure might argua<l- have <een imBroBer
had it <een done <- other than 1NS agent0. See the ne)t ca0e;.
1n 6oBeO v. :arriga" 917 (.2d *3 I10t Cir. 199+; an 1NS agent a0?ed Aue0tion0 o.
Ber0on0 <e.ore <oarding airline0 in /uerto !ico. &he Court held that 1NS agent0 at an
- 165 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
airBort gate ma-" =ithout violating the Con0titution" inAuire a<out a Bro0Bective
Ba00enger>0 citiOen0hiB and de0tination. &he mere Bo0ing o. Aue0tion0 <- a government
o..icial i0 not con0idered to <e a 0eiOure. &he Court noted that under .ederal la=" the 1NS
ha0 authorit- to a0? Aue0tion0 o. a Ber0on the- thin? ma- <e violating immigration la=0.
7. 3Ohu=an v. State" 7$* /.2d 91$ I,la0?a" 199+;" held that a &err- 0toB
occurred =hen an o..icer Bartiall- <loc?ed a Ber0on>0 car =ith the Bolice car =hile
activating the overhead light0.
$. 5.S. v. 8a0?al" 7+9 (.2d *%3 I11th Cir. 19$3;" held that a &err- 0toB occurred
=hen Bolice 0Bo?e to a Ber0on in an airBort and too? hi0 tic?et and a0?ed him to go to a
44
near<- o..ice =ithout returning the tic?et.
9. 5.S. v. &avolacci" $9% (.2d 1423 ID.C. Cir. 199+;" held no &err- 0toB =here
an o..icer ?noc?ed on a door to a Ber0on>0 train comBartment" a0?ed Bermi00ion to a0?
Aue0tion0 and reAue0ted and received a train tic?et and Ber0onal identi.ication" then
BromBtl- returned them.
1+. 5.S. v. &orre0':uevara" 147 (.3d 12*1 I1+th Cir. 199$; 3..icer0
encountered the de.endant at an airBort and a0?ed .or and received her identi.ication and
an airline tic?et. &he o..icer0 loo?ed at the0e item0 returned them immediatel- and told
her 0he =a0 not under arre0t and could leave.
&he o..icer0 never touched or re0trained the =oman <ut a0?ed her t=ice .or
con0ent to 0earch .or drug0. 8hen the o..icer again a0?ed .or Bermi00ion to 0earch her 0he
did not re0Bond. &he o..icer a0?ed her again and 0he again did not re0Bond. &he o..icer
then told her i. 0he had drug0" 0he 0hould turn them over.
- 166 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,nother o..icer" a0?ed H-ou have drug0" don>t -ouDH 8hen 0he But her head do=n
in0tead o. an0=ering" he a0?ed: Hdon>t -ouDH She re0Bonded:H-e0.H /olice detained her
and had a .emale Bolice o..icer 0earch her and .ound the drug0
&he Court ruled that thi0 =a0 a non'0eiOure encounter 0tating that a0?ing
incriminating Aue0tion0 doe0 not Ber 0e ma?e thi0 an inve0tigative 0toB although
accu0ator- and Ber0i0tent Aue0tioning" di0Bla- o. =eaBon0" or commanding or threatening
tone o. voice =ould amount to an inve0tigative detention.
I3; 82,& C3NS&1&5&ES H!E,S3N,B6E S5S/1C13NDH
H!ea0ona<le 0u0BicionH i0 a term li?e HBro<a<le cau0eH =hich evade0 Breci0e
de.inition. ,lthough the rule0 .or Bolice'citiOen contact0 are <a0ed on o<Jective
0tandard0" a deci0ion <- a court that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion e)i0t0 deBend0 on the oBinion
<- that Judge Ior in the ca0e o. an aBBellate court ' a grouB o. Judge0;. &he 0ame
articula<le .actor0 =hich might <e no more than a HhunchH in one court>0 mind ma-
amount to over=helming rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion in another court>0 mind. &hi0 i0 a human
.actor =e all have to live =ith.
(or e)amBle" read the Ca0e o. 5.S. v. 4endenhall" 44* 5.S. %44 I19$+;"
involving an encounter <et=een Bolice and a 0u0Bected drug courier at an airBort. &hree
SuBreme Court Ku0tice0 thought that the contact <et=een the Bolice and 4endenhall =a0
a non'0eiOure contact reAuiring no Ju0ti.ication. &hree other Ku0tice0 thought it =a0 a
&err- 0toB" <ut that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion e)i0ted. &hree other Ku0tice0 thought it =a0 a
&err- 0toB" <ut =a0 illegal <ecau0e there =a0 not !CS.
3..icer0 0hould ?no= the vie= o. the va0t maJorit- o. court0 a<out the .actor0 that
ma- indicate !CS and .actor0 =hich have little or no 0uBBort .or !CS or /CC.
- 167 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NE!#35SNESS
I1; 1n 5.S. v 8ood" 1+* (.3d 942 I1+th Cir 1997; the Court ruled" M8e have
4%
reBeatedl- held that nervou0ne00 i0 o. limited 0igni.icance in determining rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion and that the government>0 reBetitive reliance on the nervou0ne00 o. either the
driver or Ba00enger a0 a <a0i0 .or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion Hin all ca0e0 o. thi0 ?ind mu0t <e
treated =ith caution.N
N1t i0 common ?no=ledge that mo0t citiOen0" =hether innocent or guilt-" =hen
con.ronted <- a la= en.orcement o..icer =ho a0?0 them Botentiall- incriminating
Aue0tion0 are li?el- to e)hi<it 0ome 0ign0 o. nervou0ne00.H Same ruling on nervou0ne00 in
5.S. v. /eter0" 1+ (.3d 1%17" 1%21 I1+th Cir.1993; and 5.S. v. Bec?" 14+ (.3d 1129 I$th
Cir. 199$;. See 5.S. v. 4c!ae" $1 (.3d 1%2$ I1+th Cir. 199*; holding that nervou0ne00
along =ith other o<Jective .actor0 ma- contri<ute to !CS.
!E(5S,6 &3 C33/E!,&E
I2; 1n (lorida v. Bo0tic?" 111 S.Ct. 23$2 I1991; in addition to holding that the
Bolice contact =a0 non' 0eiOure" the Court al0o 0tated that the 0u0Bect>0 re.u0al to
cooBerate =ith Bolice Ii.e.: an0=er Aue0tion0 andCor con0ent to 0earch; =ould not have
given the Bolice rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion let alone Bro<a<le cau0e to 0eiOe the 0u<Ject or
0earch hi0 luggage. Same deci0ion <- all (ederal and State Court0: 5.S. v. (letcher" 91
(.3d 4$ I$th Cir. 199*;" 5.S. v. &orre0" *% (.3d 1241 I4th Cir. 199%;" @arne0 v.
S?rut0?i" *2 (.3d 4$% I3rd Cir. 199%; and :a0ho v. 5nited State0" 39 (.3d 142+ I9th Cir.
1994;.
&!,1NED 3BSE!#,&13NS
- 168 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I3; Several 5S Circuit court ca0e0 hold that" M=hen u0ed <- trained la=
en.orcement o..icer0" o<Jective .act0" meaningle00 to the untrained" can <e com<ined =ith
Bermi00i<le deduction0 .rom 0uch .act0 to .orm a legitimate <a0i0
.or 0u0Bicion.H 5.S. v. Sholola" 124 (.3d $+3 I7th Cir. 1997; and 5.S. v. 6uJan" 1$$ (.3d
%2+ I1+th Cir. 1999;.
I4; 5.S. v. CorteO" 449 5.S. 1 I19$1;" dealt =ith an inve0tigation <- the Border
/atrol into 0muggling alien0. 3ver 0everal month0" o..icer0 0a= 0et0 o. .ootBrint0" one o.
=hich had a uniAue Battern" coming acro00 the <order and ending uB near a high=a-
=hich ran Barallel to the <order. &he trac?0 led into o<0tacle0 =hich =ould have <een
vi0i<le during the da-. &he trac?0 turned ea0t=ard at the high=a-" then di0aBBeared a.ter
a 0hort di0tance.
&he o..icer0 0et uB a vantage Boint at night" a<out 27 mile0 ea0t o. the location
=here mo0t o. the .ootBrint0 di0aBBeared into the high=a-. &he- e0timated it =ould ta?e
a<out 1 [ hour0 .or a vehicle to Ba00 their location" go to the Bic?uB Boint and return to
their location. &he- 0toBBed a Bic?uB =ith a camBer 0hell =hich =ent Ba0t and then
returned in that time .rame.
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court held: rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion did e)i0t on the0e .act0 to
Ju0ti.- a 0toB o. the truc?. /ro0ecutor0 0hould read and cite thi0 ca0e o.ten. 1t contain0
language telling court0 that even HinnocentH action0 =hen vie=ed <- Bolice o..icer0 =ho
have ?no=ledge o. the mode0 or Battern0 o. certain t-Be0 o. criminal activit- can give
!CS. H, trained o..icer dra=0 in.erence0 .rom data that might =ell elude an
4*
untrained Ber0on.H H&he te0t .or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion i0 not in =eighed in term0 o.
- 169 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
li<rar- anal-0i0 <- 0cholar0.H
I%; 5.S. v. 6ender" 9$% (.2d 1%1I4th Cir.1993; o..icer0 o<0erved .our or .ive
men Hhuddled on a cornerH in a ?no=n drug area. 3ne o. the men Hhad hi0 hand 0tuc? out
=ith hi0 Balm uB" and the other men =ere loo?ing do=n to=ard hi0 Balm.H 8hen the
grouB 0a= the Bolice " the- H<egan to di0Ber0e" and the de.endant =al?ed a=a- .rom the
o..icer0 =ith hi0 <ac? to them.H Ba0ed on the hour o. the da-" the grouB>0 di0Ber0al uBon
0eeing the o..icer0" the ?no=n character o. the neigh<orhood" and the o..icer0> Bractical
e)Berience in recogniOing drug tran0action0" the court uBheld the 0toB.
I*; 5.S. v. 4attarlo" 191 (.3d 1+$2 I9th Cir. 1999; 6ate at night" an o..icer =a0
on a dar? 0ecluded countr- road and 0a= a Bic?uB truc? in the drive=a- o. a .enced
con0truction 0torage area" =ith the gate clo0ed. &he truc? le.t the drive=a- =ith a three.oot
0Auare crate in the <ac?. ,t that hour there =a0 no <u0ine00 activit-. &he o..icer
0toBBed the de.endant.
&he Court held" M&he o..icer ha0 an o<Jective <a0i0 .or hi0 0u0Bicion0 <a0ed on all
the circum0tance0. 1t i0 not a matter o. hard certaintie0" <ut o. Bro<a<ilitie0. &hi0
reAuire0 more than an o..icer>0 hunch" <ut a BreBonderance o. the evidence to 0ho= Broo.
o. =rong doing i0 not reAuired at thi0 0tage. !CS there.ore can ari0e .rom in.ormation
di..erent in Aualit- and content and even le00 relia<le than that reAuired .or the
e0ta<li0hment o. Bro<a<le cau0e. &he o..icer>0 training and e)Berience are .actor0 to
con0ider in determining i. the o..icer>0 0u0Bicion0 =ere rea0ona<le.
See 0ection on Ba0i0 .or (ri0? .or other Bart o. 4attarlo ca0e
I7; 5.S. v. Xuinn" $3 (.3d 917 I7th Cir. 199*; ,n o..icer 0a= three men on a
0treet corner in a high drug crime area. 5Bon 0eeing the o..icer" one thre= a Bla0tic <ag
- 170 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
do=n and the- 0Blit uB and <egan to =al? a=a-. 3ne man =ent one =a- and the other
t=o =ent in the oBBo0ite direction. &he o..icer ordered Xuinn to 0toB and 0a= that he =a0
carr-ing a leather Jac?et H=added uB in hi0 arm0.N
2e ordered Xuinn to accomBan- him <ac? to the Bolice car and to Blace the
Jac?et on the car. ,0 he did 0o" the o..icer heard a HthudH 0ound. 2e did a Bat'do=n
0earch .inding no =eaBon0 then Batted the Jac?et and .elt a hard o<Ject in0ide and
removed a .22 ri.le 0a=ed'o.. and modi.ied into a handgun. 2e arre0ted Xuinn then =ent
to the corner to retrieve the 0u0Bected crac? cocaine.
&he Court held the Bolice action la=.ul" Mthe de.endant>0 Bre0ence in a high crime
area i0 an in0u..icient ground I<- it0el.; to 0toB or 0earch. 2o=ever" court0 ma- con0ider
the de.endant>0 Bre0ence in a high crime area a0 Bart o. the totalit- o. circum0tance0
con.ronting the o..icer at the time o. the 0toB.
DE(1N1N: !E,S3N,B6E S5S/1C13N
I$; 5.S. v. /errin" 4% (.3d $*9 I4th Cir. 199%; the court held Mrea0ona<le
0u0Bicion i0 a le00 demanding 0tandard than Bro<a<le cau0e not onl- <ecau0e !CS can <e
e0ta<li0hed =ith in.ormation that i0 le00 in Auantit- than that reAuired to 0ho= /CC" <ut
al0o .rom in.ormation that i0 le00 relia<le than needed .or /CC.N
47
I9; 5.S. v. 2en0le-" 1+% S.Ct. *7% I19$%;" i0 imBortant .or at lea0t t=o Boint0.
&he 5nited State0 SuBreme Court held that the H.ello= o..icerH rule aBBlie0 to &err- 0toB0
0o that the o..icer actuall- ma?ing the 0toB could rel- on a H=anted .or inve0tigationH .lier
i00ued <- Bolice in another 0tate 0o long a0 the i00uing Bolice had rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion.
,l0o" thi0 ca0e e)tended the authorit- to ma?e a &err- 0toB <e-ond rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion
- 171 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that Hcriminal activit- =a0 a.ootH Ii.e." a Bre0entl- occurring crime; to a 0eriou0 crime
Iarmed ro<<er-; that had occurred =ee?0 earlier.
I1+; 1n 3rnela0 v. 5.S." 11* S.Ct. 1*%7 I199*; Bolice in 4il=au?ee =ho =ere
trained in drug interdiction 0a= a 19$1 3ld0mo<ile =ith Cali.ornia Blate0 in a motel
Bar?ing lot in Decem<er. &he Bolice chec?ed the regi0tered o=ner through di0Batch and
then learned .rom the DE, that the !C3 =a0 in N,DD1S IDE, comButer; a0 a
M0u0BectedN drug tra..ic?er. /olice learned .rom the motel manager that 3rnela0 and
another man chec?ed in at 4am =ithout re0ervation0. /olice al0o ?ne= that older model
:4 car0 had large 0Bace0 in the door0 and other location0.
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid that the0e .act0 con0tituted !CS. &he Court 0aid that
although the mo0aic =hich i0 anal-Oed .or !CS or /CC i0 multi .aceted and one
determination =ill 0eldom <e u0e.ul Brecedent .or another a court 0hould loo? at all the
Brecedent0 in ma?ing a deci0ion. &he court 0hould determine the Mhi0torical .act0N Iie:
the 0Beci.ic .act0 o. the ca0e; and then ma?e a legal deci0ion a0 to =hether the .act0
0ati0.- the con0titutional 0tandard.
I11; 1n State v. Sonne.eld" 114 Nev. *31 I199$; the Court ruled that a deBut-
0heri.. had rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion 0u..icient to ma?e inve0tigator- 0toB o. vehicle <a0ed on
hi0 corro<oration o. <artender>0 detailed tiB to di0Batcher that ine<riated cu0tomer had le.t
<ar and =a0 driving under in.luence9 <artender Brovided color o. car" de0criBtion o.
di0tingui0hing roo. rac?" licen0e Blate num<er" Bh-0ical de0criBtion o. driver and
direction in =hich vehicle =a0 heading" all o. =hich =ere con.irmed <- the o..icer
there<- e0ta<li0hing !CS.
I12; 3ther Nevada ca0e0 are 8right v. State" $$ Nev. 4*+ I1972;" Kac?0on v.
- 172 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
State" 9+ Nev. 2** I1974;" Nel0on v. State" 9* Nev. 3*3 I19$+;" and 1del.on0o v. State" $$
Nev. 3+7 I1972;. ,ll o. the0e reAuired ver- little in term0 o. Marticula<le .act0N to 0ho=
!CS.
,N3N7435S ,ND 3&2E! &1/S
I13; ,la<ama v. 8hite" 11+ S.Ct. 2412 I199+;" held that an anon-mou0 tiB that a
.emale =ould leave a Barticular aBartment comBle) at a Barticular time" =ould drive a
certain de0cri<ed car" =ould go to a certain de0tination and =ould <e carr-ing drug0 =a0
enough .or rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion =hen Bolice corro<orated the detail0 o. the tiB and
0toBBed the car a0 it neared the de0tination. 1t made no di..erence that all the action0
o<0erved <- the Bolice =ere Hinnocent.H 40. 8hite>0 0u<0eAuent con0ent to 0earch"
=hich turned uB the doBe" =a0 not the .ruit o. an unla=.ul &err- 0toB.
I14; 1n 5.S. v. /rice" 1$4 (.3d *37 I7th Cir. 1999;" the /olice received an
4$
anon-mou0 tiB 0tating that a =hite 4ercur- Cougar" =ith a licen0e Blate containing the
letter0 H(6K"H =ould <e delivering one ?ilogram o. cocaine to a 0Beci.ic re0idence in
4il=au?ee. &he tiB0ter told the Bolice that the car had le.t She<o-gan at a<out 9:++ B.m.
I ,<out *+ mile0 .rom 4il=au?ee.; and al0o 0tated that the car =ould contain t=o <lac?
=omen" Charlene and /atricia " and one <lac? man named Calvin Ial0o gave la0t name0;
/olice arrived at the vicinit- o. the 0u0Bect re0idence in an unmar?ed car at around 1+:4%
B.m.. &he o..icer0 did not veri.- =ho lived at the re0idence" and did not Ber.orm record
chec?0 o. three BeoBle named <- the tiB0ter.
,t aBBro)imatel- 11:2+ B.m." a =hite 4ercur- Cougar arrived containing t=o
<lac? =omen and t=o <lac? men. &he driver dou<le'Bar?ed the car and le.t the engine
- 173 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
running. &he licen0e Blate contained the letter0 H:K6.H ,ll .our occuBant0 got out and
aBBroached the re0idence. /olice 0toBBed them at the 0ide=al? and indicated that the-
=ere inve0tigating a narcotic0 comBlaint. Several o. the occuBant0 Broduced 1D
con.irming the name0 given <- the in.ormant. 6ater" narcotic0 =ere .ound. &he Court
held that the 0toB =a0 <a0ed on !CS.I ,la<ama v. 8hite.;.
I1%; 1n 5.S. v. Bell" 1$3 (.3d $4* I$th Cir. 1999; /olice acted on a tiB .rom 40.
2arri0" =ho Brovided detailed in.ormation that criminal activit- =a0 a.oot.
M2arri0 =a0 a clo0e acAuaintance o. Bell =ho had Breviou0l- Brovided accurate
in.ormation a<out him. 2arri0>0 tiB''that Bell and 1ngram =ere driving to 6ittle !oc? to
Bic? uB crac? cocaine .rom 6inda Bee''=a0 con0i0tent =ith in.ormation received .rom
other 0ource0 le00 than a month earlier and =ith more recent in.ormation that Bell and
1ngram =ere 0elling drug0 at 2314 Kean Street.
&he tiB =a0 .urther corro<orated =hen the o..icer0 0a= a car matching the
de0criBtion 2arri0 had Brovided traveling on 5.S. 2igh=a- *% in the direction o. /ine
Blu... M Con0idering the totalit- o. the circum0tance0" =e agree =ith the di0trict court that
the 0toB did not violate Bell>0 (ourth ,mendment right0.N
1ND1#1D5,6 S5S/1C13N
I1*; 7<arra v. 1llinoi0" 1++ S.Ct. 33$ I1979;" =a0 a ca0e =here Bolice had a 0earch
=arrant .or a tavern and the <artender" <a0ed on Bro<a<le cau0e" that he =a0 0elling drug0
at the <ar. /olice entered the tavern during <u0ine00 hour0 to 0erve the 0earch =arrant"
and Batted do=n the Batron0. 3ne o. the Batron0 =a0 7<arra =ho had doBe in hi0 Boc?et
=hich =a0 0eiOed. &he 5nited State0 SuBreme Court held: illegal 0earch ' no rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion that 7<arra =a0 engaged in criminal activit- andCor that he might have a
- 174 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=eaBon" Ju0t <ecau0e he =a0 in the <ar. !ea0ona<le 0u0Bicion and Bro<a<le cau0e mu0t
<e individualiOed.
I17; , recent ca0e demon0trate0 the rule that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion mu0t <e
individualiOed. &he di..erence =a0 =hether the !CS did or did not cover more than one
Ber0on. 1n 5.S. v. Kohn0on" 17+ (.3d 7+$ I7th Cir. 1999; Bolice =ere aBBroaching a
re0idence .or a M?noc? and tal?.N ,0 the- arrived" a Ber0on e)ited the re0idence and =a0
&err- 0toB detained <- Bolice. &he detention and Bat do=n =ere held to <e unla=.ul
<ecau0e there =a0 no individualiOed 0u0Bicion a0 to that Ber0on.
49
!E,S3N,B6E 41S&,@E 3( (,C&S
&=o ca0e0 0ho= that rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion can <e .ound in a ca0e =here the Bolice
=ere mi0ta?en a<out the .act0 Ju0ti.-ing the detention" <ut the .act0 <elieved <- the Bolice
=ere .ound to <e rea0ona<le Iie: the Bolice had no rea0on to <elieve that the .act0 =ere
incorrect =hen the 0toB =a0 made.
I1$; 1n the ca0e o. Stuart v. State" 94 Nev. 721 I197$;" the o..icer noticed that the
trun? loc? on the vehicle =a0 mi00ing. ,.ter the 0toB =a0 e..ected" the o..icer detected
the odor o. mariJuana and noticed =hat aBBeared to <e mariJuana 0eed0 on the .loor in the
.ront 0eat o. the vehicle. &he court 0aid H&he o..icer" in thi0 ca0e" had o<0erved the
mi00ing trun? loc?" and" <a0ed uBon training he had received at the 2igh=a- /atrol
,cadem-" in.erred that the vehicle might <e 0tolen. 5nder the0e circum0tance0" =e
<elieve the o..icer>0 conclu0ion =a0 rea0ona<le and he =a0 Ju0ti.ied in 0toBBing the
vehicle .or routine Aue0tioning and inve0tigation.H
Since the o..icer had la=.ull- attained the Bo0ition .rom =hich he o<0erved the
- 175 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mariJuana in oBen vie=" and it =a0 in a vehicle =hich could <e 0earched =ithout a
=arrant he had a right to 0eiOe it and the mariJuana =a0 BroBerl- admitted into evidence.
N3&E: &he vehicle =a0 not actuall- 0tolen.
I19; 5.S. v. ,lvareO" $99 (.2d $33 I9th Cir. 199+;" an unidenti.ied caller told
Bolice that tall 2i0Banic male =ould ro< certain <an? =ithin 1+ minute0 and had
e)Blo0ive0 in trun? o. =hite 4u0tang. /olice 0a= =hite 4u0tang <ac?ed into Bar?ing
0Bace .acing <an? =ith 2i0Banic driver. Car Bulled out =hen Bolice arrived. /olice
0toBBed car and Batted do=n driver. (ound gun then 0earched car and .ound gun0 and
drug0 in trun?. Be.ore trial" caller =a0 identi.ied and it =a0 0ho=n that hi0 Hro<<er-
BlanH claim =a0 .al0e. 2eld: Bolice action 3@. Even anon-mou0 tiB can Brovide /CC or
!CS .or &err- 0toB =here Bolice can corro<orate all detail0 o. tiB. (act that all o.
0u0Bect>0 action0 =ere HinnocentH ma?e0 no di..erence. /olice didn>t ?no= tiB =a0
.al0e'Bolice had o<Jectivel- rea0ona<le articula<le <a0i0 .or 0toB.
I2+; But ' -ou mu0t <e care.ul a<out a 0toB <a0ed on =rong in.ormation. 1. the
o..icer>0 Ior Bolice deBartmentP0; negligence cau0e0 or Broduce0 the incorrect in.ormation
=hich" on the 0ur.ace" Ju0ti.ie0 the 0toB ' later on the court =ill Bro<a<l- 0a- 0toB i0 no
good. (or e)amBle: 0toB no good =here Bolice o..ice called in =rong licen0e num<er" or
el0e di0Batcher heard it =rong and told o..icer Blate0 didn>t match. 6ater determined that
Blate0 did match. Evidence .rom the 0toB =a0 tainted. 5nited State0 v. De6eon'!e-na"
$9$ (.2d 4$* I%th Cir. 199+; ' 0ame re0ult in 3tt v. State" *++ ,.2d 111 I4d. 1992;.
INote: thi0 i0 0till true even a.ter the deci0ion in ,riOona v" Evan0 I0ee 0ection on MBolice
mi0ta?e0; <ecau0e there the error =a0 done <- the court cler?P0 o..ice not <- the Bolice
deBartment;.
- 176 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5N/!3#3@ED (61:2& (!34 /361CE
I21; 1n 1llinoi0 v. 8ordla= Idecided Kanuar- 2+++; the maJorit- o. the 5.S.
%+
SuBreme Court held that" although a Ber0on 0tanding in an area ?no=n .or heav-
narcotic0 tra..ic?ing" <- that .act alone i0 not 0u<Ject to a &err- 0toB. 1. the Ber0on .lea0
.rom the Bolice Bre0ence =ithout Brovocation" that Ber0on can <e &err- 0toBBed. /olice
did 0o9 did a Bat'do=n <ecau0e" in the o..icerP0 e)Berience it =a0 common .or =eaBon0 to
<e around drug tran0action0" and .ound a =eaBon on 8ordla=" =hich =a0 held
admi00i<le.
&=o .ollo=ing ca0e0 hold that although unBrovo?ed .light .rom Bolice alone i0
not enough .or !CS" that the .light along =ith other .actor0" can 0uBBort !CSC
I22; State v. Stinnett" 1+4 Nev. 39$ I19$$;" Bolice =ere on Batrol in area =ith
high incidence o. drug crime0 and 0a= 0everal men huddled in .ront o. a<andoned
re0idence. 3ne o. the grouB noticed the Bolice" he ran to=ard the <ac? o. the re0idence
cha0ed <- the Bolice. , .e= minute0 later" Bolice entered the a<andoned home and .ound
0u0Bect huddled in a clo0et =ith drug0 near<-. 2eld: &he 0u0Bect =a0 not detained =hen
he ran .rom the Bolice. 8hen the 0u0Bect =a0 .ound in0ide the a<andoned hou0e" he =a0
detained" <ut all the circum0tance0 including hi0 unBrovo?ed .light Ju0ti.ied an
inve0tigative detention.
I23; 1n 5.S. v. Kac?0on" 17% (.3d *++ I$th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled that 1t =a0
rea0ona<le .or o..icer to tac?le de.endant to e..ect inve0tigative 0toB =hen o..icer0 =ere
re0Bonding to call that 0hot0 had <een .ired at addre00 in high'crime neigh<orhood"
de.endant =a0 <ehind area =here 0hot0 =ere .ired and nervou0l- <egan to .lee =hen
- 177 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o..icer0 aBBroached in mar?ed 0Auad car" o..icer0 noticed that de.endant aBBeared to <e
clutching 0omething at hi0 0ide a0 he ran" and continued to .lee a.ter o..icer0 announced
that the- =ere o..icer0 and told de.endant to 0toB.
I4; M/!3(161N:N
Xuite a <it o. con.u0ion e)i0t0 in Bolice circle0 concerning MBro.ilingN <ut modern
ca0e0 ma?e the correct legal con0eAuence0 Auite clear. 1n a nut0hell" =hen o..icer0
ma?e a 0toB <a0ed on Bro.iling" the .act that Bro.iling =a0 u0ed ha0 no legal
0igni.icance at all. 1t doe0nPt helB or hurt the validit- o. the 0toB. &hi0 =a0 the holding
o. the 5. S. SuBreme Court in So?olo=.
1. 1n 5nited State0 v. So?olo=" 1+9 S.Ct. 1%$1 I19$9;" DE, agent0 0toBBed the
0u0Bect at 2onolulu ,irBort <ecau0e I1; he had Baid L2"1++ ca0h .or airline tic?et0" I2; he
traveled under a name that did not match the name under =hich the Bhone num<er he
u0ed =a0 li0ted" I3; hi0 de0tination had <een 4iami =hich =a0 a H0ource cit-H" I4; he
0ta-ed in 4iami onl- 4$ hour0" I%; he aBBeared nervou0 and I*; he had no chec?ed
luggage. DE, .ound 1 ?ilo o. cocaine in hi0 carr-'on luggage a.ter a trained drug
0ni..ing dog alerted on the luggage and DE, o<tained a 0earch =arrant. 2eld:
!ea0ona<le 0u0Bicion .or a &err- 0toB e)i0ted. ,lthough each .actor ta?en alone =a0
in0u..icient to Ju0ti.- a 0toB" =hen ta?en together the- amount to rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion.
&he HBro.ileH .actor0 0ho=n here are HBro<ativeH and amount to rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion
even though none o. them are HcriminalH. &he .act that the Ber0on .it a HBro.ileH did not
in and o. it0el. eAual rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion.
%1
2. 1n @arne0 v. S?rut0?i" *2 (.3d 4$% I3rd Cir. 199%; the Court ruled that Hthe
- 178 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
drug courier Bro.ile ha0 little meaning indeBendent o. the o<Jective .act0H Bre0ented <-
the la= en.orcement o..icer a0 0u..icient to demon0trate rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion. 1n other
=ord0" the .actor0 that the la= en.orcement o..icer u0e0 to e0ta<li0h /CC or !CS mu0t <e
articulated Iie: 0Beci.ied; <a0ed on the circum0tance0 o. each ca0e. &he Bro.ile it0el. doe0
not Brovide an- additional 0uBBort .or .inding /CC or !CS. Same ruling in 5.S. v.
4alone" $$* (.2d 11*2 I9th Cir. 19$9;" 5.S. v. 4oore" 22 (.3d 241 I1+th Cir. 1994; and
5.S. v. L%3"+$2 in 5S Currenc-" 9$% (.2d 2$% I*th Cir. 1993; a0 =ell a0 numerou0 0tate
0uBreme court ca0e0.
3. See the 0ection on M/rete)t StoB0N in thi0 manual. &he modern la= <a0ed on
the 8hren ca0e .rom the 5.S. SuBreme Court and :ama ca0e .rom the Nevada SuBreme
Court ma?e it clear that a0 long a0 an o..icer ha0 an- o<Jective <a0i0 .or ma?ing a 0toB"
the o..icerP0 internal motive0 are irrelevant. &hi0 mean0 that an o..icer can ma?e a 0toB
<a0ed on a MBro.ileN <ut onl- 0o long a0 there i0 0ome other <a0i0 .or the 0toB. &here i0 no
longer an- 0uch thing a0 an illegal Brete)t 0toB.
4. 50e o. indicator0 0uch a0 mem<er0hiB in certain racial grouB0 in drug courier
Bro.iling ha0 <een 0harBl- challenged. MDe.endantP0 nationalit- I4e)ican; and hi0
.riend0P u0e o. SBani0h cannot 0uBBort rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion o. 0muggling drug0N
according to 5nited State0 v. :arcia" 23 (.3d 1331 I$th Cir. 1994;.
I%; 82,& (3!4S &2E B,S1S &3 (!1S@ D
&he right to .ri0? i0 not generall- automatic =ith a valid M0toB.N
1. 1n Si<ron v. Ne= 7or?" 392 5.S. 4+ I19*$; and 7<arra v. 1llinoi0" 444 5.S.
$% I1979; the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid that the general rule i0 that a M.ri0?N i0 not al=a-0
Ju0ti.ied <ecau0e the M0toBN i0 Ju0ti.ied. &he o..icer ha0 to <e a<le to Boint to Barticular
- 179 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.act0 that made him thin? the 0u0Bect Mma- <eN armed.
2. 1n 4inne0ota v. Dic?er0on" 113 S.Ct. 213+ I1993;" the HBlain .eelH ca0e"
Ku0tice Scalia>0 concurring oBinion ma?e0 it clear that the right to H.ri0?H doe0 not
automaticall- accomBan- the right to H0toB.H I&hi0 i0 the oBBo0ite o. H0earch incident to
arre0tH rule =hich doe0 automaticall- accomBan- an- la=.ul cu0todial arre0t.;.
3. ,dam0 v. 8illiam0" 4+7 5.S. 143 I1972;" held that =here a relia<le in.ormant
told an o..icer that a Ber0on 0itting in a Bar?ed car had a concealed =eaBon. &he o..icer
a0?ed the Ber0on to 0teB .rom the car" <ut in0tead ,dam0 rolled do=n the =indo=. &he
o..icer reached in the =indo= to hi0 =ai0t<and and .elt" then 0eiOed" a gun. &hi0 =a0
enough rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion .or a 0toB and .ri0?.
4. 1n 5.S. v. 4attarolo" 191 (.3d 1+$2 I9th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled that an
o..icer ma- conduct a limited Brotective 0earch .or concealed =eaBon0 i. there i0 a rea0on
to <elieve the 0u0Bect ma- have a =eaBon. &he o..icer mu0t choo0e <et=een <eing 0ure
that the 0u0Bect i0 not armed and JeoBardiOing hi0 o=n 0a.et-. ,n o..icer ma?ing a 0toB
%2
under the 0u0Biciou0 circum0tance0 o. the Bre0ent ca0e =ho .ailed to Batdo=n the 0u0Bect
.or =eaBon0 =ithin the limited 0coBe o. &err- could <e ta?ing 0u<0tantial and
unnece00ar- ri0?0.N Di0tingui0hing an earlier ca0e" the Court that the 0toB in that ca0e
=a0 in a <an? Bar?ing lot during the da-light hour0" not on a remote 0ection o. road at
midnight. &he Ber0on 0toBBed =a0 a 0u0Bected counter.eiter" not a 0u0Bect caught
Bo00i<l- in the act o. committing a nighttime <urglar- and there.ore more li?el- to <e
armed.
1n 4attarolo" the de.endant got out o. hi0 car 0=i.tl- and =al?ed Auic?l- to=ard
- 180 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the 0Auad car <e.ore the o..icer had the chance to get out o. hi0 car. &hi0 cau0ed the
o..icer to get out o. hi0 0Auad car Auic?l- 0o a0 not to <e traBBed =ith the mean0 o.
Brotecting him0el. con0eAuentl- limited. :iven the totalit- o. the circum0tance0" the
Batdo=n 0earch =a0 .ull- Ju0ti.ied and a Brovident Brocedure to .ollo=.
%. 1n 5. S. v. Sinclair" 9$3 (.2d %9$ I4th Cir. 1993; the Court held that Mthe
o..icerP0 rea0ona<le <elie. ma- derive a0 much .rom hi0 e)Berience0 in 0imilar ca0e0 a0
.rom hi0 ?no=ledge o. the dangerou0 BroBen0itie0 o. the 0u0Bect at hand.N
*. 1n 5. S. v. :i<0on" *4 (.3d *17 I11th Cir. 199%; the Court 0aid that =here the
o..icer had corro<orated ever- item o. in.ormation .rom an anon-mou0 tiB0ter a<out a
certain 0u0Bect" the o..icer had rea0on to <elieve the tiB0terP0 0tatement that the 0u0Bect
=a0 armed.
7. 1n 5.S. v. &a-lor" 1*2 (.3d 12 I10t Cir. 199$; the Court ruled that 1n.ormant>0
tiB that occuBant0 o. automo<ile =ere in Bo00e00ion o. crac? cocaine and =eaBon0 and
=ere delivering narcotic0 e)hi<ited 0u..icient indicia o. relia<ilit- to Ju0ti.- inve0tigator-
0toB o. automo<ile and .ri0? o. the occuBant09 in.ormant had Brovided relia<le
in.ormation in the Ba0t" tiB included 0uch detail0 a0 ma?e and color o. car and de0criBtion
o. it0 occuBant0" and tiB =a0 corro<orated in 0igni.icant a0Bect0 <- the o..icer.
$. 1n 5.S. v. CamB<ell" 17$ (.3d 34% I%th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled it =a0 not
unrea0ona<le .or Bolice o..icer to dra= hi0 =eaBon" order armed <an? ro<<er- 0u0Bect to
lie on ground" handcu.. 0u0Bect =ith hi0 hand0 <ehind hi0 <ac?" and .ri0? 0u0Bect during
cour0e o. inve0tigator- 0toB" even though 0u0Bect comBlied =ith o..icer>0 order0 and
ro<<er- had occurred aBBro)imatel- 3+ hour0 Brior to 0toB9 0u0Bect matched de0criBtion
o. armed <an? ro<<er and he =a0 getting into driver>0 0ide o. automo<ile matching
- 181 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
de0criBtion o. geta=a- car" there =ere other BeoBle in area during 0toB" and there =ere
onl- three o..icer0 to control three 0u0Bect0.
!E4E4BE! ' , (!1S@ C,N 3N67 BE D3NE (3! 8E,/3NS" N3& (3! ,N7 3&2E!
1&E4S 3! C3N&!,B,ND. 238E#E!" 1( &2E (!1S@ 1S D3NE 81&2 !CS &2,& ,
8E,/3N
1S /!ESEN&" B5& ,(&E! !E43#1N: &2E 1&E4 &2,& M(E6& 61@EN , 8E,/3N" &2E
/361CE (1ND &2,& 1& 8,S N3& ,C&5,667 , 8E,/3N" &2E SE,!C2 G SE1Z5!E 1S
S&166 #,61D
9. 5.S. v. !a-mond" 1%2 (.3d 3+9 I4th Cir. 199$; /olice 0toBBed a car .or
0Beeding. !a-mond =a0 a Ba00enger and the Bolice ordered him out o. the car. 2e got
out clutching hi0 0tomach. &he o..icer Batted him do=n and .elt a large di0c li?e o<Ject
=hich he thought might <e a =eaBon. 1t turned out to <e a 7H roc? cocaine di0?. &he
%3
court ruled that the circum0tance0 gave ri0e to an articula<le 0u0Bicion that he might have
<een armed =ith a =eaBon. &here =a0 a rea0ona<le <a0i0 .or conducting a Batdo=n
0earch <a0ed on hi0 0trange e)it .rom the car" a0 i. he =ere attemBting to conceal
0omething under hi0 Jac?et" and the a=?=ard =a- in =hich he leaned again0t the car
=hile tal?ing to Bolice.
1+. 5.S. v. !ahman" 1$9 (.3d $$ I2d Cir. 1999; the Court held that 0eiOure o.
.orged Ba00Bort0 <- agent0 =a0 rea0ona<le" =here agent0 learned that vehicle u0ed in
<om<ing o. o..ice <uilding in Ne= 7or? Cit- had <een rented <- Ber0on li0ting hi0
addre00 a0 0u0Bect>0 addre00" agent0 o<tained =arrant to 0earch 0uch addre00" agent0
o<0erved 0u0Bect returning to the <uilding at accelerated Bace =hen the- entered to
- 182 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0earch" 0u0Bect re0i0ted <eing .ri0?ed" and agent0 .elt .irm rectangular o<Ject in hi0 Boc?et
that the- could have rea0ona<l- e)Bected =a0 an e)Blo0ive device" <ut turned out to <e
enveloBe containing Ba00Bort0.
11. 5.S. v. Ed=ard0" %3 (.3d *1* I3rd Cir. 199%; the Court ruled Bolice =ere
Ju0ti.ied in conducting &err- Brotective Batdo=n .or =eaBon0 and oBening enveloBe
.ound in Boc?et o. Jac?et on de.endant>0 laB. /olice re0Bonded to reBort o. credit card
.raud in Brogre00" and =ere Ju0ti.ia<l- concerned that 0mall'cali<er handgun could <e
concealed in enveloBe" =hich mea0ured .our <- 0i) inche0 and .elt .rom out0ide a0 i. it
held hard" <ul?- o<Ject.I.ound 0tolen credit card0'3@;.
12. 5.S. v. Strahan" 9$4 (.2d 1%% I*th Cir. 1993; the Court recogniOed the rule
that =here an o..icer i0 doing a la=.ul M.ri0?N and .eel0 an o<Ject that rea0ona<l- aBBear0
to <e 0ome 0ort o. =eaBon" the o..icer can remove that item" and i. it turn0 out that it =a0
not actuall- a =eaBon" <ut i0 contra<and" the 0eiOure o. the contra<and i0 la=.ul. IBulge
and hard item turned out to <e mone- cliB;
13. 1n 5.S. v. Bro=n" 1$$ (.3d $*+ I7th Cir. 1999; the Court ruled that 3..icer
had articula<le ground0 .or !CS that Ber0on in a tra..ic 0toB might <e armed and
dangerou0" to Ju0ti.- an initial Bat'do=n 0earch9 circum0tance0 included o..icer>0
?no=ledge o. (B1 0urveillance o. the vehicle a0 a Bo00i<le Bart o. a large'0cale drug
oBeration" the 0mell o. mariJuana 0mo?e .rom the car" driverP0 ver- nervou0 demeanor"
hi0 .ailure to ma?e e-e contact" hi0 glancing <ac? to the vehicle" =here the other
occuBant0 rolled do=n the tinted =indo=0 during the tra..ic 0toB" and the .act that the
0toB occurred in a high crime area =here there =a0 gang and drug activit- and had <een
recent 0hooting0.
- 183 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nervou0ne00" re.u0al to ma?e e-e contact or high crime area alone =ill not Ju0ti.-
a &err- 0toB and Bat'do=n" <ut 0uch <ehavior ma- <e con0idered a0 a .actor in the totalit-
o. circum0tance0.
&he Court Ju0ti.ied a Bat'do=n 0earch .ollo=ing tra..ic 0toB =hich di0clo0ed a
hard o<Ject a<out the 0iOe o. a Bing'Bong <all in 0u0Bect>0 groin area. M 1t =a0 rea0ona<le
.or o..icer to thin? o<Ject =a0 the <utt o. a gun" even i. o..icer =ould have <een more
rea0ona<le to thin? the o<Ject =a0 drug0.N
14. 5.S. v. CamB<ell" 17$ (.3d 34% I%th Cir. 1999; Court held removal" during
%4
cour0e o. inve0tigator- 0toB" o. content0 o. 0u0Bected armed <an? ro<<er>0 Boc?et =a0
rea0ona<le and =ithin 0coBe o. Bermi00i<le &err- .ri0?" =here Bolice o..icer had not ruled
out Bo00i<ilit- that large <ulge" .ormed <- over L1"4++ in currenc- and card<oard <o)
containing gold chain" =a0 a =eaBon.
Note: 3..icer0 0hould <e a=are that an item encountered and la=.ull- removed
during a M.ri0?N doe0 not generall- give the right to oBen the item unle00 it might
rea0ona<l- contain a =eaBon. 3ther=i0e" i. it i0 oBened" evidence =ill <e 0uBBre00ed
unle00 there =a0 Ju0ti.ication. I!emem<er: !CS i0 enough to get =eaBon0 <ut /CC U
con0ent or a SC8 i0 needed to get contra<and or evidence. Be=are o. a Brete)t arre0t to
get authorit- to 0earch; M&he need to di0cover =eaBon0 cannot Ju0ti.- oBening the
match<o)N/ace v. Beto" 4*9 (.2d 13$9 I%th Cir. 1972" 0ame ruling regarding 0mall
Bouch /eoBle v. 4artineO" $+1 /.2d %42 IColo. 199+; and cigarette ca0e in C.2. v.
State" %4$ So.2d $9% I(lorida" 19$9;
/lea0e re.er to the M/lain #ie=N 0ection in thi0 manual under 0u<Ject o. M1mmediatel- aBBarent"N .or
- 184 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
di0cu00ion on M0ingle BurBo0eN container0.
&he theoretical di0tinction <et=een H0toB0H and H.ri0?0H Ithat each reAuire0 it0
0eBarate Ju0ti.ication; i0 0ometime0 <lurred" although the courtP0 deci0ion i0 correct" .or
e)amBle:
1%. 1n !u0ling v. State" 9* Nev. 77$ I19$+;" a Bolice o..icer 0a= a Ber0on =ith a
car Bar?ed in the road" trun? and door oBen" =al? acro00 the 0treet to a truc? =here a
ru<<er ho0e led .rom the ga0 tan? to a ga0 can. &he 0u0Bect .led and the o..icer <roadca0t
a de0criBtion. ,nother o..icer 0toBBed the 0u0Bect I<a0ed on matching de0criBtion and
location; a<out one hour later. &he 0u0Bect =a0 Batted do=n and a gun =a0 .ound.
De.endant =a0 charged =ith Bo00e00ion o. a .irearm <- e)'.elon. 3n the Bat do=n i00ue"
the court 0aid:
H&he o..icer need not <e a<0olutel- certain that the individual i0 armed I&err-;.
&he o..icer had rea0ona<le ground0 to anticiBate danger to him0el. or the other o..icer.
&he 0u0Bect met the de0criBtion o. one =ho =a0 Bo00i<l- engaged in auto the.t. &he
0u0Bect .led and =a0 hiding. &he 0toB occurred late at night. ,ll the0e .actor0 led the
o..icer to conclude rea0ona<l- that the 0u0Bect =a0 involved in criminal conduct.
&here.ore" it =a0 not imBroBer .or him to in.er the Bo00i<ilit- o. a concealed =eaBon.H
Certain &-Be0 o. Crime Do Ku0ti.- an MautomaticN (ri0?
4an-" <ut not all" court0 hold that certain t-Be0 o. criminal activit- are commonl-
a00ociated =ith =eaBon0" there<- Ju0ti.-ing a .ri0? .or =eaBon0 i. there i0 rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion o. that t-Be o. criminal activit-.
(or e)amBle" Mhigh levelN drug dealing ha0 <een vie=ed thi0 =a- in the .ollo=ing
ca0e0: 5.S. v. Bro=n" 9+3 (.2d %4+ I$th Cir. 199+;" /eoBle v. 6ee" 24+ Cal. !Btr. 32
- 185 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I19$7;" 5.S. v. /ea-" $$% (.SuBB. 1 IDC D.C. 199%;" 5. S. v. 4c4urra-" 34 (.3d 14+%
%%
I$th Cir.1994; and 5.S. v. Sala0" $79 (.2d %3+ I9th Cir. 19$9; 5.S. v. /rice" 1$4 (.3d *37
I7th Cir.1999;.
#iolent dome0tic di0Bute0 can Auali.-" /eoBle v. Bar<er" %37 N.E.2d 1171 I1ll.
19$9;" State v. #a0AueO" $+7 /.2d %2+ I,riO. 1991;.
,rmed ro<<er-: 5.S. v. ,<o?hi" $29 (.2d *** I$th Cir.19$7; and 5.S. v. 6ang"
$1 (.3d 14+% I$th Cir. 1994;.
Burglar-: 5.S. v. 8al?er" 924 (.2d 1 I10t Cir. 1991;" 5.S. v. 4oore" $17 (.2d
11+% I4th Cir. 19$7;.
I*; M/6,1N (EE6N
4inne0ota v. Dic?er0on" 113 S.Ct. 213+ I1993;" i0 the 0o'called HBlain .eelH ca0e.
5ni.ormed Bolice =ere on Batrol at night near an aBartment <uilding ?no=n to them a0 a
hot<ed o. drug dealing0. /olice had 0erved 0everal drug 0earch =arrant0 at that <uilding
and had citiOen comBlaint0 o. drug0 <eing 0old in the hall=a-0. Dic?er0on =a0 o<0erved
leaving the <uilding and =al?ed to=ard the mar?ed Bolice car. 5Bon 0eeing the Bolice"
he turned and a<ruBtl- =al?ed the other =a- and entered an alle-.
&he o..icer0 made a H&err- 0toBH on Dic?er0on and al0o H.ri0?edH him. 8hile
H.ri0?ingH Dic?er0on" one o..icer .elt 0omething in hi0 Boc?et =hich the o..icer 0lid
around and maniBulated" then removed a Bla0tic <ag containing 1C% gram o. roc? cocaine.
I&he legalit- o. the H0toBH and the deci0ion to H.ri0?H =ere not an i00ue <e.ore the 5nited
State0 SuBreme Court. 1t =a0 a00umed" <ut not directl- held <- the Court" that the- =ere
valid.; &he i00ue i0 =hether and =hen HBlain .eelH =ould allo= o..icer0 to legall- 0eiOe
- 186 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
item0 other than 0u0Bected =eaBon0.
&he Court held a0 .ollo=0: a00uming that there i0 a legal 0toB and a legal .ri0?"
and during the .ri0? the o..icer .eel0 an item that i0 not a 0u0Bected =eaBon" then i. it i0
immediatel- aBBarent .rom the ma00 and contour that the item i0 Bro<a<l- contra<and" the
o..icer can legall- 0eiOe it I=ithout having to arre0t the Ber0on and rel- on 0earch incident
to arre0t;.
1n Dic?er0on" the Court ruled that the roc? cocaine =ould have to <e 0uBBre00ed"
<ecau0e the o..icer continued .eeling and .ri0?ing a.ter the o..icer alread- concluded no
=eaBon =a0 in the Boc?et ' i.e." Blain .eel mean0 immediatel- aBBarent.
1n 5.S. v. /roctor" 14$ (.3d 39 I10t Cir. 199$; Bolice had la=.ull- entered a
Bremi0e0 and 0eiOed a large Bac?age o. mariJuana. ,<out 1% minute0 later. &=o Ber0on0
?noc?ed on the door and =ere admitted entr-. &he o..icer Batted them do=n and .elt
=hat he thought =a0 a Bla0tic <ag containing mariJuana. &he Court uBheld the .ri0? and
al0o the 0eiOing o. the mariJuana <a0ed on the o..icerP0 e)Berience and the .act that the
Ber0on0 entered a drug hou0e Ju0t a.ter the drug0 arrived.
1n State v. Conner0" 11* Nev. FFFF" 994 /2d 44 I(e< 4" 2+++; an o..icer la=.ull-
0toBBed and .ri0?ed Satan !enee Conner0. ,.ter ruling out a =eaBon the o..icer changed
hi0 griB on a Boc?et to determine =hat an o<Ject =a0 and removed a 0mall vial o.
methamBhetamine. &he item =a0 0uBBre00ed <a0ed uBon the Dic?er0on ruling.
8e0tla= comButer re0earch di0clo0e0 that man- .ederal court0 have .ollo=ed the
%*
rule e0ta<li0hed <- 4inne0ota v. Dic?er0on and that more than 9+Y o. State SuBreme
Court0 =hich have dealt =ith the i00ue have adoBted the 0ame rule.
- 187 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I7; 82,& 6141&S EZ1S& 3N &2E SC3/E ,ND 1N&ENS1&7 3(
&2E S&3/D
&he :eneral !ule
1n 5.S. v. SharBe" 1+% S.Ct. 1%*$ I19$%;" a DE, agent develoBed rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion that one o. t=o vehicle0 traveling in tandem on a high=a- =a0 0muggling
drug0. &he agent got helB .rom a 0tate trooBer and a Ba00enger car =a0 Bulled over. &he
Bic?uB truc? 0u0Bected to contain the drug0 could not <e Bulled over .or 0everal mile0.
&he Bolice unit0 lo0t radio contact and the Bic?uB truc? and it0 driver =ere detained a<out
1% minute0 <e.ore an agent arrived" 0melled mariJuana and develoBed Bro<a<le cau0e.
&he criminal claimed that thi0 time dela- converted the H0toBH into an Harre0tH and 0ince
there =a0 onl- rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion and not Bro<a<le cau0e" he claimed there =a0 an
unla=.ul arre0t. &he Court held: no arre0t until a.ter the 0ni.. o. mariJuana ' 0coBe o.
&err- 0toB =a0 3@. &he Court 0aid a &err- 0toB =a0 a temBorar- detention Ia0 oBBo0ed
to an arre0t; and that the 0coBe =a0 la=.ul a0 long a0 the Bolice diligentl- Bur0ued a
mean0 o. inve0tigation that =a0 li?el- to con.irm or di0Bel their 0u0Bicion0 Auic?l-.
N3&E: 1n So?olo=" the 5nited State0 SuBreme Court held that the inve0tigative mean0
u0ed <- Bolice to con.irm or di0Bel 0u0Bicion do not have to <e the lea0t intru0ive mean0
Bo00i<le ' onl- that the- <e Hrea0ona<leH mean0.
5.S. v. 3=en0" 1*7 (.3d 739 I10t Cir 1999;%+ minute detention o. driver and Ba00enger
a.ter 0toB o. automo<ile .or 0Beeding =a0 not 0o long a0 to convert inve0tigative 0toB into
de .acto arre0t. 6ength o. detention =a0 rea0ona<le under the circum0tance0: driver did
not have valid driver>0 licen0e" need to determine =hether Ba00enger had authorit- to
drive the automo<ile" and o..icer0> diligent Bur0uit o. mean0 o. inve0tigation that =ould
- 188 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
di0Bel their 0u0Bicion0.
M&he Bermi00i<le 0coBe o. the detention deBend0 on the .act0 and circum0tance0 o.
each ca0e" <ut in ever- ca0e it mu0t <e temBorar- and la0t no longer than nece00ar- to
e..ectuate the BurBo0e o. the 0toB.N 5.S. v. Sandoval" 29 (.3d %37 I1+th Cir.1994;.
&hi0 rule i0 the 0ame a0 0et .orth in Nevada 6a=. But" note that Nevada Blace0 an
a<0olute limit o. *+ minute0 .or a &err- 0toB. See al0o 8a0hington v. State" 94 Nev. 1$1
I197$;.
N.!.S. 171.1231. ,rre0t i. Bro<a<le cau0e aBBear0. ,t an- time a.ter the on0et
o. the detention Bur0uant to N!S 171.123" the Ber0on 0o detained 0hall <e arre0ted i.
Bro<a<le cau0e .or an arre0t aBBear0. 1." a.ter inAuir- into the circum0tance0 =hich
BromBted the detention" no Bro<a<le cau0e .or arre0t aBBear0" 0uch Ber0on 0hall <e
relea0ed.
1." in the cour0e o. the detention" .urther in.ormation come0 to the ?no=ledge o.
%7
the o..icer =hich amount0 toH/CCN to arre0t Ii.e." more .act0 than needed .or rea0ona<le
0u0Bicion;" then -ou can arre0t. 1n reBort =riting" <e 0ure to di..erentiate initial 0toB a0
inve0tigator- detention and =hen and ho= it e0calated into an arre0t.
Non'Search E)amination
1n 5.S. v. 4artin" $+* (.2d 2+4 I$th Cir. 19$*;" =here an o..icer loo?ed through
the =indo= o. a 0u0Bect>0 Bic?uB truc? and 0a= machine gun Bart0 '' he could 0eiOe them
=ithout =arrant" or in &e)a0 v. Bro=n" 4*+ 5.S. 73+ I19$3;" =here Bolice 0hined a
.la0hlight into a Ber0on>0 car =hich =a0 0toBBed at a routine tra..ic chec? Boint and 0a=
=hite Bo=der and <alloon0.
- 189 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&hi0 rule =a0 aBBlied in State v. 2er<ert 8right" 1+4 Nev. %21 I19$$;.
&emBorar- SeiOure o. 1tem0
!ea0ona<le 0u0Bicion can 0uBBort a temBorar- 0eiOure I=ithout a 0earch; o.
Ber0onal item0 0uch a0 the 0u0Bect>0 0uitca0e in 5. S. v. /lace" 4*2 5.S. *9* I19$3;
Ialthough in /lace" the 9+'minute detention o. the 0uitca0e =a0 too long .or an
inve0tigative 0eiOure =ith !CS" <ut =ithout Bro<a<le cau0e;.
,n o..icerP0 removal o. a 0uitca0e .rom a <aggage area conve-or <elt" 0AueeOing
the <ag and then 0ni..ing the <ag =a0 neither a 0earch nor a 0eiOure. 5.S. v. :arcia" 42
(.3d *+4 I1+th Cir. 1994; M&he temBorar- moving o. unattended luggage .rom one area o.
a <u0 to another to .acilitate a dog 0ni.. i0 not a 0eiOure.M 5.S. v. :raham" 9$2 (.2d 273
I$th Cir. 1992; M&he de.endantP0 onl- intere0t =a0 that the airline =ould Blace hi0 luggage
on the ne)t airBlane. &he Bolice Broce00 o. ta?ing the luggage .rom a cart to an o..ice
and having the dog 0ni.. it =a0 comBleted Brior to the time the luggage =ould have <een
Blaced on the airline. &here =a0 no 0eiOure o. the luggage until a.ter the dog alerted.N
5.S. v. (uru?a=a" 99 (.3d 1147 I9th Cir.199*; Same re0ult in 5.S. v. 8ard" 144 (.3d
1+44 I7th Cir. 199$;.
Conducting a one'on'one at the 0cene or el0e=here.
N3&E: N!S 171.123 0a-0 in Nevada the Hone on oneH mu0t <e at Blace =here
0u0Bect detained.
,lthough no emergenc- e)ceBtion i0 li0ted in Nevada 0tatute0" Bro<a<l- it =ould
<e 3@ to tran0Bort the 0u0Bect Ia00uming !CS; to the victim i. the victim couldn>t <e
tran0Borted.
, 39'minute detention o. 2 0e)ual a00ault 0u0Bect0" including tran0Bortation to a
- 190 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ho0Bital to <e vie=ed <- the victim" =a0 valid =here <a0ed on !CS. ,t lea0t 2% minute0 o.
the detention =a0 due to comBletion o. the victim>0 treatment at the ho0Bital <e.ore
vie=ing the 0u0Bect0. /olice =ere acting diligentl- to Bur0ue a mean0 o. inve0tigation"
namel-" di0Bla- o. the de.endant0 to the victim =hile her memor- =a0 0till .re0h" =hich
=a0 li?el- to con.irm or di0Bel their 0u0Bicion Auic?l-" and thi0 mean0 o. inve0tigation
%$
o<viou0l- reAuired the rea0ona<le detention o. the de.endant0.H State v. 4itchell" %+7
,.2d 1+17" Conn.19$*;.
I$; 5SE 3( 8E,/3NS 3! 2,NDC5((S 1N DE&EN&13N
Numerou0 ca0e0 have held that di0Bla- o. =eaBon or handcu..ing 0u0Bect doe0 not
in and o. it0el. convert a HdetentionH into an Harre0tH Ialthough the0e thing0 tend to Bu0h
in the direction o. arre0t'0ee Mlevel0 o. contactN .actor0; <ut -ou mu0t <e a<le to
articulate =h- the0e mean0 =ere emBlo-ed Ithing0 0uch a0 0u0Bicion directed at crime o.
violence" detection occurred at night" i0olated area" o..icer alone" ri0? o. .light;.
2andcu..0 o?a-" 5. S. v. Bauti0ta" *$4 (.2d 12$* I9th Cir. 19$2;. Same re0ult in 5.S. v.
Blac?man" ** (.3d 1%72 I11th Cir. 199%; and al0o in 5.S. v. &ilmon" 19 (.3d 1221 I7th
Cir. 1994;
/lacing 0u0Bect in Bolice car did not eAual an arre0t. State v. Bra)ton" 49% ,.2d
273 I19$%;. Same re0ult in 5.S. v. Cannon" 29 (.3d 472 I9th Cir. 1994;.
1n 5. S. v. 4erritt" *9% (.2d 12*3 I1+th Cir. 19$2;" the Court held that Bointing a
gun at a 0u0Bect 0toBBed on a rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion o. criminal activit- doe0 not
nece00aril- turn the encounter into an arre0t reAuiring Bro<a<le cau0e. , Bic?uB truc?
<elieved to contain a murder .ugitive and 2 other Ber0on0 =a0 0urrounded <- at lea0t 12
- 191 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
o..icer0" and a0 man- a0 three Bointed gun0 at the 0u0Bect0.
&hi0 0ho= o. .orce =a0 not unrea0ona<le" con0idering the Botential danger .aced
<- the o..icer0. 3ne o. the Ber0on0 <elieved to <e in the truc? =a0 =anted .or murder"
and the Bolice had <een advi0ed that he =a0 dangerou0 and heavil- armed. ,l0o" the
Bolice had Ju0t <een to a hou0e =here the 0u0Bect =a0 thought to re0ide" and o<0erved a
large a00ortment o. deadl- =eaBon0 and ammunition. &he 0ame circum0tance0 0uBBorted
a H.ri0?H o. the Bic?uB truc? .or =eaBon0.
4erritt ha0 <een .ollo=ed in numerou0 other ca0e0: 5. S. v. 2ardnett" $+4 (.2d
3%3 I*th Cir. 19$*;ICC1 0aid 4 armed men =ere in car;9 5. S. v. !oBer" 7+2 (.2d 9$4
I11th Cir. 19$3; I<ail JumBer;9 5. S. v. /erate" 719 (.2d 7+* I4th Cir. 19$3;9 5. S. v.
Kone0" 7%9 (.2d *33 I$th Cir. 19$%;9 5. S. v. &rullo" $+9 (.2d 1+$ I10t Cir. 19$7;" 5.S. v.
,lvareO" $99 (.2d $33 I9th Cir. 199+; IBo00i<le <an? ro<<er- and e)Blo0ive0;9 5.S. v.
&a-lor" $%7 (.2d 21+ I4th Cir. 19$$; I!CS 0toB and Bolice ?ne= Ber0on had <een
convicted .or a00ault =ith intent to murder and ro<<er-;9 5.S. v. &ilmon" 19 (.3d 1221
I7th Cir. 1994; I!CS 0toB o. <an? ro<<er =ho threatened u0e o. e)Blo0ive09 5.S. v. Cole"
7+ (.3d 113 I4th Cir. 199%; IBolice 0u0Bected car occuBant0 had a large amount o. drug0
and might <e armed;.
1n 2ou0ton v. Clar? Count-" 174 (.3d $+9 I*th Cir. 1999; the Court held that it
=a0 valid .or the o..icer" a.ter a !CS 0toB to handcu.. a 0u0Bect in a 0eriou0 violent crime"
<ut the length and manner o. the o..icerP0 conduct mu0t <e related to the initial <a0i0 .or
the 0toB9 Same ruling in 5.S. v. CamB<ell" 17$ (.3d 34% I%th Cir. 1999; valid .or o..icer
I=ith !CS .or the 0toB; to dra= gun and handcu.. the 0u0Bect =ho =a0 in a car =ith the
licen0e num<er o. a recent armed ro<<er-.
- 192 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1n 5.S. v. Navarrete'Baron" 192 (.3d 7$* I$th Cir. 1999; the Court held that
%9
Bolice o..icer0 did not e)ceed 0coBe o. &err- 0toB =hen the- handcu..ed occuBant0 o.
automo<ile and Blaced them in 0eBarate Batrol car0 =hile o..icer0 0earched automo<ile9
there =ere t=o 0u0Bect0 and onl- t=o o..icer0 at 0cene" detention did not la0t .or
unrea0ona<l- long time" and in light o. dangerou0 nature o. 0u0Bected crime o. drug
tra..ic?ing and good Bo00i<ilit- that driver or Ba00enger had =eaBon" their con.inement
=ith handcu..0 in <ac? o. Batrol car0 during 0earch =a0 rea0ona<l- nece00ar- to maintain
0tatu0 Auo" Brotect o..icer0" and allo= them to conduct 0earch immediatel- and =ithout
inter.erence.
1n 5.S. v. 4aOa'Corrale0" 1$3 (.3d 111* I9th Cir. 1999; Drug en.orcement
agent0> temBoraril- detaining de.endant =ith the u0e o. handcu..0 .or 1% to 3+ minute0
=hile Aue0tioning him" =a0 rea0ona<le and did not e0calate into a .ull'<lo=n arre0t" given
relativel- 0mall num<er o. o..icer0 Bre0ent at 0cene" .act that =eaBon0 had <een .ound
and more =eaBon0 Botentiall- remained hidden" .leeing Ber0on0 =ere on the loo0e"
uncooBerative Ber0on0 =ere in0ide the re0idence" an armed loo?out =a0 out0ide and <le=
a car horn =hen DE, came.
&he Court held that Mintru0ive and aggre00ive Bolice conduct =ill not <e deemed
an arre0t in tho0e circum0tance0 =hen it i0 a rea0ona<le re0Bon0e to legitimate 0a.et-
concern0 on the Bart o. the inve0tigating o..icer0. 8hen =e ma?e 0uch Judgment0"
common 0en0e and ordinar- human e)Berience rather than <right'line rule0 0erve a0 our
guide" and =e recogniOe that H=e allo= intru0ive and aggre00ive Bolice conduct =ithout
deeming it an arre0t in tho0e circum0tance0 =hen it i0 a rea0ona<le re0Bon0e to legitimate
- 193 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0a.et- concern0 on the Bart o. the inve0tigating o..icer0.H
See 0ame ca0e in MBrotective 0=eeBN 0ection immediatel- .ollo=ing
I9; EZ&END1N: &2E (!1S@ &3 , !ES1DENCE
1t 0hould <e noted that all court0 hold that a Ber0on>0 home ha0 an e)tremel- high
e)Bectation o. Brivac- and =arrantle00 entrie0 are vie=ed diml-. ISee .ollo=ing 0ection0
on emergenc- and 0earch =arrant0.; 2o=ever" in 0ome limited circum0tance0 a
HBrotective 0=eeBH o. a Bremi0e0 can <e made on rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion.
1n 4ar-land v. Buie" 11+ S.Ct. 1+93 I199+;" the court allo=ed Bolice to ma?e a
Brotective 0=eeB o. a re0idence a.ter la=.ul entr- =ith an arre0t =arrant a0 long a0 there
=a0 rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion o. danger to Bolice to Ju0ti.- the Brotective 0=eeB. 1tem0 in
Blain vie= during the Brotective 0=eeB could <e 0eiOed. &hi0 authorit- i0 in addition to
the right to conduct a .ull 0earch o. area immediatel- adJoining area o. arre0t. IS1&,;.
5. S. v. 2o-o0" $*$ (.2d 1131 I9th Cir. 19$9;" 1n thi0 ca0e 2o-o0 attemBted to
e0caBe arre0t <- entering the hou0e. ,l0o" the o..icer0 =ere a=are that 0everal 0u0Bect0
had not -et <een arre0ted and could Bo00i<l- <e in the area o. the re0idence.
&he Court ruled that the Brotective 0=eeB e)ceBtion to the reAuirement o. a 0earch
=arrant to enter a re0idence ma- aBBl- i. the arre0t occur0 out0ide. M&hi0 i0 not 0urBri0ing
<ecau0e the di0tinction i0 logicall- un0ound. 1. the e)igencie0 to 0uBBort a Brotective
0=eeB e)i0t" =hether the arre0t occurred in0ide or out0ide the re0idence doe0 not a..ect
*+
the rea0ona<lene00 o. the o..icer>0 conduct. , <ullet .ired at an arre0ting o..icer 0tanding
out0ide a =indo= i0 a0 deadl- a0 one that i0 BroJected .rom one room.N
5.S. v. 2enr-" 4$ (.3d 12$2 IDC Cir. 199%; /olice acted rea0ona<l- in
- 194 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conducting Brotective 0=eeB o. de.endant>0 aBartment a.ter hi0 arre0t Ju0t out0ide
aBartment>0 oBen door" =here Bolice in.ormant had Breviou0l- advi0ed o..icer0 that
de.endant =ould have =eaBon0 and that de.endant>0 H<o-0H might <e =ith him in
aBartment9 0=eeB did not violate de.endant>0 (ourth ,mendment right0.
M&he o..icer0> a=arene00 that 2enr- had a Breviou0 =eaBon0 conviction and could
<e dangerou0 did not it0el. directl- Ju0ti.- the 0=eeB. 3nce 2enr- =a0 in cu0tod-" he no
longer Bo0ed a threat to the Bolice. But the in.ormantP0 advice couBled =ith the arre0t Ju0t
out0ide the oBen door" =a0 0u..icient to lead a rea0ona<l- Brudent Boliceman to .ear that
he =a0 vulnera<le to attac?.
8hile it i0 true that the o..icer0 could not <e certain that a threat e)i0ted in0ide the
aBartment" thi0 doe0 not imBugn the rea0ona<lene00 o. their ta?ing Brotective action. 1t i0
enough that the- Hhave a rea0ona<le <a0i0 .or <elieving that their 0earch =ill reduce the
danger o. harm....H
1n 5.S. v. 4eOa'Corrale0" 0uBra" the Court held that 5.S. Drug En.orcement
agent0 had Ju0ti.ication to conduct their initial Brotective 0=eeB Ia 0earch =arrant had not
-et <een o<tained; o. de.endant>0 re0idence to en0ure that no Botentiall- dangerou0
Ber0on0 =ere hiding in0ide re0idence. ISee .act0 o. ca0e;
M4eOa'Corrale0>0 argument that Bridge0>0 0ounding o. the horn o. the BlaOer" the
di0cover- o. loaded handgun0" and the 0ighting o. .leeing BeoBle" all had a<0olutel- no
connection =ith =hat =a0 going on in0ide the re0idence and =ith the BeoBle =ho lived
there" 0imBl- <ecau0e the- all Bh-0icall- occurred out0ide the re0idence" i0 Batentl-
ridiculou0.N
1n 2a-e0 v. State" 1+* Nev. %43 I199+;" Bolice arre0ted 0u0Bect out0ide o. hi0
- 195 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
re0idence. Su0Bect 0houted to in0ide o. hou0e Hthe coB0 are hereH and Bolice had 0ome
rea0on I.rom CC1; to <elieve the arre0tee had gun0 around. &he court 0aid the Brotective
0=eeB I=hich di0covered doBe in Blain vie=; =a0 unla=.ul 0ince in the court>0 oBinion
the Bolice could have =ithdra=n =ith the 0u0Bect =ho =a0 arre0ted .or a non'violent
.elon-. &he court did recogniOe and agree =ith the 4ar-land v. Buie conceBt" <ut held
that the .act0 in 2a-e0 =ere not 0u..icient to allo= 0uch a 0=eeB. &hi0 =a0 a 0Blit deci0ion
<- the Court.
1n 5.S. v. Burro=0" 4$ (.3d 11+1 I7th Cir. 199%; Bolice had an arre0t =arrant .or
Burro=0 =ho lived in a hou0ing BroJect having an e0ta<li0hed reButation .or violence.
&he arre0t =arrant =a0 .or a violent crime . 8hen Bolice arrived at hi0 aBartment" the-
0a= movement in an uB0tair0 =indo= and the occuBant0 re.u0ed to let the Bolice enter.
/olice entered =ith a Ba00 ?e- .rom the manager and .ound and arre0ted Burro=0 in one
room. &hen" <ecau0e there =ere other occuBant0 and the Breviou0l- 0tated circum0tance0"
the Bolice did a Brotective 0=eeB in le00 than % minute0" during =hich the- .ound a gun in
a clo0et. &he Court uBheld the Brotective 0=eeB under the0e .act0.
*1
3ther ca0e0 al0o uBheld Brotective 0=eeB0
5. S. v. !ichard0" 937 (.2d 12$7" 1291 I7th Cir.1991; Inoting that an Ham<u0h in
a con.ined 0etting o. un?no=n con.iguration i0 more to <e .eared than it i0 in oBen" more
.amiliar 0urrounding0H;.
5. S. v. Kame0" 4+ (.3d $%+ I7th Cir.1994; I.inding no 4th ,mendment violation
=here o..icer Auic?l- 0earched <edroom clo0et and Jac?et located therein. 3..icer0 had
encountered multiBle individual0 in the d=elling" arre0ted one 0u0Bect Ju0t out0ide the
- 196 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
<edroom" and had .ound a 0emiautomatic ri.le in the <edroom.;
5. S. v. Bar?er" 27 (.3d 12$7 I7th Cir.1994; 2eld o..icer had rea0ona<le <elie.
that area 0=eBt har<ored dangerou0 individual0 <ecau0e a 0econd o..icer>0 Brior dealing0
=ith de.endant indicated that .irearm0 and multiBle individual0 could <e Bre0ent.
5. S. v. 4endoOa'Burciaga" 9$1 (.2d 192 I%th Cir.1992; noting that o..icer0"
=ho had arre0ted t=o narcotic0 cocon0Birator0 in high'0Beed cha0e and t=o more Ju0t
out0ide a hou0e" H=ould <e in great dangerH i. additional armed individual0 remained
in0ide the home" and .inding that o..icer0> =arrantle00 entr- and Brotective 0=eeB
con0tituted Hminimall- nece00ar- 0teB0 to 0ecure the hou0eH .or BurBo0e0 o. en0uring
0a.et- and 0a.eguarding evidence.
5. S. v. @immon0" 9*% (.2d 1++1I11th Cir.1992; 3?Pd 0=eeB in ca0e involving
<an? ro<<er- con0Birac- =here t=o BarticiBant0 =ere arre0ted a=a- .rom the Bremi0e0
and had ordered de.endant out o. hi0 hou0e and arre0ted him" <ut =ere un0ure o. the
=herea<out0 o. a .ourth cocon0Birator.
I1+; 82E!E 1S &2E 61NE BE&8EEN , MS&3/P ,ND ,N
M,!!ES&DN
1. 1n 2a-e0 v. (lorida" 47+ 5.S. $11 I19$%; the 5.S. SuBreme Court 0aid that
although there i0 no M<right line ruleN to an0=er thi0 Aue0tion" at 0ome Boint in the
inve0tigation Bolice Brocedure0 can <ecome 0o Aualitativel- and Auantitativel- intru0ive
regarding a 0u0BectP0 .reedom o. movement and Brivac- that an Marre0tN occur0. &he
Court 0aid thi0 occur0 =hen the Bolice" =ithout /CC or a =arrant" .orci<l- reAuire a
Ber0on to go to a Bolice 0tation =here he i0 detained even <rie.l- .or inve0tigation.
2. M&here i0 no <right line rule ... there.ore =hether an arre0t ha0 occurred
- 197 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deBend0 on all the circum0tance0. /ointing a =eaBon" ordering him to lie on the ground"
handcu..ing and Blacing in a Bolice vehicle .or a <rie. Beriod o. time either 0ingl- or in
com<ination doe0 not al=a-0 convert a I&err-; 0toB into an arre0t reAuiring /CC ... Bolice
need not u0e the lea0t intru0ive mean0 o. re0Bonding to an e)igent 0ituation ... a0 long a0
their action0 are rea0ona<le.N ,llen v. Cit- o. 6o0 ,ngele0" ** (.3d 1+%2 I9th Cir. 199%;.
Same rationale in 5.S. v. &orre0' SancheO" $3 (.3d 1123 I9th Cir. 199*; and 5.S. v.
Blac?man" ** (.3d 1%72 I11th Cir. 199%;.
3. 1n 8a0hington v. 6am<ert" 9$ (.3d 11$1 I9th Cir. 199*; &=o <lac?
*2
<u0ine00men =ere 0een leaving a re0taurant <- a Bolice o..icer. &he o..icer thought the
t=o men matched the de0criBtion o. t=o armed ro<<er0 in multiBle ro<<erie0" although
the court noted that the actual 0iOe and =eight o. 8a0hington and 2ic?0 =ere 0everal
inche0 and %+ Bound0 di..erent .rom the 0u0Bect0. &he o..icer called .or a <ac?uB and
.ollo=ed the rental car to a hotel. , radio chec? 0aid the rental car =a0 not 0tolen. ,t the
garage in the hotel" the Bolice got out and one o. them Bointed a gun at the t=o men"
ordered them to But their hand0 uB and handcu..ed them" then 0earched their Ber0on0 and
the car. No =eaBon0 or contra<and =a0 .ound. &he t=o men 0ued the Bolice under 42
5.S.C. 19$3.
. &he Court held that Min determining =hether the u0e o. intru0ive techniAue0 turn0
a 0toB into an arre0t" =e e)amine the rea0ona<lene00 o. the Bolice conduct in light o. a
num<er o. .actor0" 0uch a0 1; =here the 0u0Bect i0 uncooBerative or ta?e0 action that
rai0e0 a rea0ona<le Bo00i<ilit- o. danger or .light" 2; =here the Bolice have in.ormation
that the 0u0Bect i0 currentl- armed" 3; =here the 0toB clo0el- .ollo=0 a violent crime and"
- 198 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4; =here the Bolice have in.ormation that a crime that ma- involve violence i0 a<out to
occur. Some com<ination o. the0e .actor0 ma- al0o Ju0ti.- the u0e o. aggre00ive Bolice
action =ithout cau0ing an inve0tigator- 0toB to turn into an arre0t.
1n the Bre0ent ca0e the Bolice action con0tituted an arre0t =ith no
Bro<a<le cau0e" Ial0o argua<l- no !CS to Ju0ti.- a &err- 0toB either; there<- ma?ing
the o..icer0 and Bolice deBartment lia<le .or damage0. 42 5.S.C. 19$3.
*3
(. ,!!ES&: &2E 21:2ES& 6E#E6 3( C3N&,C&
1t i0 imBortant to di0tingui0h arre0t .rom &err-'t-Be detention. I,rre0t i0 onl-
legal i. made on Bro<a<le cau0e;.
1. S&,&5&3!7 DE(1N1&13N
N!S 171.124 0a-0 -ou can arre0t .or .elon- or gro00 mi0demeanor =ith or
=ithout a =arrant" da- or night" i. Hrea0ona<le cau0eH to <elieve 0u<Ject ha0 committed a
.elon- or gro00 mi0demeanor.
2. &2E 5.S. S5/!E4E C35!& C,SE 6,8
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court 0a-0: HBro<a<le cau0eH i0 a term dealing =ith ever-da-
Bro<a<ilitie0" not legal technicalitie0. DraBer v. 5nited State0" 3%$ 5.S. 3+7I19%9;"
H=hether a man o. rea0ona<le caution =ould <elieve an o..en0e =a0 <eing or had <een
committedH '' not a Aue0tion o. the Hgood .aithH o. the o..icer <ut a need to articulate
.act0 cau0ing rea0ona<le <elie..
&he Ho<Jective te0tH i0 u0ed to determine =hether and =hen an arre0t occur0. ,
court ma- con0ider that there =a0 an arre0t even though the 0u0Bect =a0 not told H-ou are
under arre0tH. (actor0 0uch a0 0ho= o. authorit-" involuntar- re0traint or movement and
- 199 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ba00age o. time are imBortant.
Duna=a- v. Ne= 7or?" 442 5.S. 2++ I1979;" Bolice lac?ed Bro<a<le cau0e to
arre0t '' =ent to 0u0Bect>0 neigh<orP0 home and a0?ed him in a comBul0ive =a- to go to
Bolice 0tation =here he =a0 Blaced in interrogation room '' =a0n>t told he =a0 .ree to go '
' the triB .rom the re0idence to the Bolice 0tation =a0 0everal mile0 and too? 1 hour ''
2eld '' although he =a0n>t told he =a0 under arre0t and =a0n>t <oo?ed '' thi0 =a0 0ame a0
an Harre0tH" <ecau0e the Bolice told him he needed to go to the Bolice 0tation" he
acAuie0ced" and the triB too? an hour and =ent man- mile0 .rom hi0 re0idence. 2i0
0u<0eAuent con.e00ion to a crime =a0 0uBBre00ed a0 a H.ruitH o. the Harre0tH =ithout
Bro<a<le cau0e.
(lorida v. !o-er" 4*+ 5.S. 491 I19$3;" Bolice 0u0Bected de.endant a0 drug
courier" aBBroached and a0?ed to 0Bea? to him and reAue0ted to 0ee hi0 tic?et and driver>0
licen0e''noted that name0 didn>t match '' a0?ed him to go to near<- room =hile retaining
hi0 tic?et and licen0e. 2eld '' thi0 con0tituted a H0eiOureH. 1% minute0 a.ter initial 0toB he
con0ented to 0earch o. 0uitca0e. Court ruled that thi0 Bolice conduct e..ectivel-
con0tituted an Harre0tH and reAuired Bro<a<le cau0e. Since there =a0 no /CC" Ialthough
there =a0 !CS; the illegal Harre0t tainted the con0ent.
3. NE#,D, C,SES
/ro<a<le cau0e to ma?e a =arrantle00 arre0t e)i0t0 i. the .act0 and
circum0tance0 ?no=n to the o..icer0 at the moment o. the arre0t =ould =arrant a Brudent
*4
man in <elieving that a .elon- had <een committed <- the Ber0on arre0ted. &homa0 v.
Sheri.." $% Nev. %%1 I19*9;.
- 200 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
&he HBro<a<le cau0eH te0t i0 <a0ed on the totalit- o. the circum0tance0
?no=n to the o..icer. 4inor v. State" 91 Nev. 4%* I197%;.
4. S&,ND,!D (3! /!3B,B6E C,5SE
Ba0icall-" the 0ame 0tandard IAuantit- o. Broo.; i0 needed .or arre0t0 a0 .or
0earche0" 0o the 1llinoi0 v. :ate0" 4*2 5.S. 213 I19$3;" totalit- o. the circum0tance0 te0t
aBBlie0 ' i.e.: a .air Bro<a<ilit-" <ut not nece00aril- a certaint-.
1n 5.S. v. 3rnela0" 11* S. Ct. 1*%7 I199*; &he Court ruled: ,rticulating
Breci0el- =hat Hrea0ona<le 0u0BicionH and HBro<a<le cau0eH mean i0 not Bo00i<le. &he-
are common 0en0e" nontechnical conceBtion0 that deal =ith H >the .actual and Bractical
con0ideration0 o. ever-da- li.e on =hich rea0ona<le and Brudent men" not legal
technician0" act.> H ,0 0uch" the 0tandard0 are Hnot readil-" or even u0e.ull-" reduced to a
neat 0et o. legal rule0.H. 8e have de0cri<ed rea0ona<le 0u0Bicion 0imBl- a0 Ha
BarticulariOed and o<Jective <a0i0H .or 0u0Becting the Ber0on 0toBBed o. criminal activit-"
and Bro<a<le cau0e to 0earch a0 e)i0ting =here the ?no=n .act0 and circum0tance0 are
0u..icient to =arrant a man o. rea0ona<le Brudence in the <elie. that contra<and or
evidence o. a crime =ill <e .ound. 8e have cautioned that the0e t=o legal BrinciBle0 are
not H.inel-'tuned 0tandard0"H comBara<le to the 0tandard0 o. Broo. <e-ond a rea0ona<le
dou<t or o. Broo. <- a BreBonderance o. the evidence.
1n 5.S. v. Covarru<ia0" *% (.3d 13*2 I7th Cir.199%; the Court held that M/olice
have /CC to arre0t i. at the moment o. the arre0t the .act0 and circum0tance0 =ithin their
?no=ledge o. =hich the- had rea0ona<l- tru0t=orth- in.ormation =ere 0u..icient to
=arrant a Brudent Ber0on in <elieving that the 0u0Bect had committed an o..en0e. 8hile
/CC reAuire0 more than mere 0u0Bicion" =e do not reAuire it to reach the level o. virtual
- 201 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
certaint-.N
1n Brinegar v. 5.S." 33$ 5.S. 1*+ I1949; the Court held" M/CC reAuire0 le00 than
Ithe amount o.; evidence that =ould Ju0ti.- a conviction <ut more than mere 0u0Bicion.N
and in SBinelli v. 5.S." 393 5.S. 41+ I19*9; the Court held that Monl- the Bro<a<ilit- and
not a Brima .acie 0ho=ing o. criminal activit- i0 the 0tandard o. /CC.N ,l0o" in :er0tein
v. /ugh" 42+ 5.S. 1+3 I197%;" in ruling on a magi0trateP0 determination o. /CC a.ter a
=arrantle00 arre0t" the Court held that Ma /CC determination doe0 not reAuire the .ine
re0olution o. con.licting evidence that a rea0ona<le dou<t or BreBonderance Imore than
%+Y Bro<a<ilit-; demand0.N
1n :reene v. !eeve0" $3+ (.3d 11+1 I*th Cir. 199*; Bolice arre0ted the Barent0 .or
Bromoting 0e)ual Ber.ormance0 <- a minor <a0ed on their 0ending o. a Bo0tcard =ith a
BhotograBh o. the genital area o. their unclothed minor daughter. &he Court uBheld the
arre0t 0tating that" M the /CC 0tandard doe0 not mean that the I evidence o. the 0u0Bected
criminal act; i0 more li?el- than not.N
*%
1n 5.S. v. 4athna-" $9% (.2d 141$ I9th Cir. 199+; H&he te0t .or Bro<a<le cau0e i0
=hether the .act0 and circum0tance0 =ithin the arre0ting o..icer>0 ?no=ledge are
0u..icient to =arrant a Brudent Ber0on to <elieve a 0u0Bect ha0 committed" i0 committing"
or i0 a<out to commit a crime.H , court ma- con0ider <oth the e)Berience and collective
?no=ledge o. all o..icer0 involved in the inve0tigation and their re0Bective level0 o.
e)Berti0e.. , court ma- al0o con0ider an- rea0ona<le in.erence0 dra=n .rom the o..icer0>
collective ?no=ledge.
1n 5.S. v. 3camBo" 937 (.2d 4$% I9th Cir. 1991; the Court held that M/CC
- 202 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evaluation deBend0 on the totalit- o. the .act0 Io. the ca0e; even though there i0 an
innocent e)Blanation .or each .act.N
Note: 1n &err- v. 3hio" 392 5.S. 1 I19*$; the Bolice detective =ith more than 2+
-ear0 e)Berience 0a= &err- and hi0 Bartner0 =al? .rom a 0treet corner to loo? in the .ront
=indo= o. a Je=elr- 0tore =ithout entering to 0hoB a<out a doOen time0 in t=elve
minute0. Even though thi0 action =a0 I0uBer.iciall-; innocent" the SuBreme Court agreed
that under all the circum0tance0 there =a0 !CS that the- =ere ca0ing the 0tore .or an
armed ro<<er-.
,lthough &err- involved !CS" 3camBo and numerou0 other ca0e0 hold that
Mo<viou0 criminalN <ehavior IBointing a gun at a victim;i0 not reAuired .or /CC.
%. S35!CES 3( /!3B,B6E C,5SE
!elia<le Con.idential 1n.ormant
See the 0ection in thi0 manual on 0earch =arrant0 to learn .actor0 that ma?e an in.ormant relia<le.
4cCra- v. 1llinoi0" 3$* 5.S. 3++ I19*7;. , 0trong Broven relia<le in.ormant =ith
.ir0t'hand in.ormation i0 enough .or Bro<a<le cau0e. H&he Court ha0 never reAuired a rule
o. comBul0or- di0clo0ure o. an in.ormant =here the i00ue i0 the Breliminar- one o.
Bro<a<le cau0e" and guilt or innocence i0 not at 0ta?eH Even an in.ormant o. le00er
relia<ilit- can <e enough i. the in.ormant Bredict0 .uture action0 and detail0. DraBer v.
5nited State0" 3%$ 5.S. 3+7 I19%9;.
1n 5. S. v. (i)en" 7$+ (.2d 1434"I 9th Cir." 19$*;" the Court held the arre0t =a0
la=.ul and <a0ed on /CC. H&he in.ormer" enli0ted <- the Bolice" met =ith the de.endant to
arrange deliver- o. 0ome cocaine9 he then told Bolice that the 0ource o. 0uBBl- =a0 a
6atin male .rom 6o0 ,ngele0. &he de.endant =a0 0urveilled traveling to 6o0 ,ngele0
- 203 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
=here" in a 0erie0 o. move0 aBBarentl- de0igned to di0courage detection" he aBBeared to
o<tain a <ro=n BaBer <ag .rom a 6atin male. 5Bon hi0 arre0t" cocaine =a0 .ound in the
<ag.H ,lthough veri.ication o. .act0 .rom the in.ormer>0 0tor- =a0 largel- o.HinnocentH
<ehavior" credi<ilit- =a0 enhanced <- the accurac- and detail o. the in.ormation given.
:enerall-" BoliceCD, are not reAuired to di0clo0e in.ormantP0 identit-
De.endant0 al=a-0 =ant to ?no= the identit- o. an in.ormant .or o<viou0 rea0on0
**
0uch a0 threat0 to ma?e the in.ormant change hi0 0tor- or to lie a<out in.ormation given to
Bolice" and 0ometime0 more dra0tic mean0. &he .ollo=ing ca0e0 e)Blain the vie= o.
.ederal court0 on the i00ue o. in.ormant di0clo0ure.
1n 5.S. v. (i)en I0uBra; &he trial court re.u0ed identi.-ing the CC1 and the 9th
Circuit uBheld that ruling. H, BroBer <alance deBend0 on the Barticular circum0tance0 o.
each ca0e" con0ideration o. crime charged" Bo00i<le de.en0e0" Bo00i<le 0igni.icance o. the
in.ormer>0 te0timon-" and other relevant .actor0.H
,lthough the in.ormer>0 Brivilege mu0t give =a- =here the di0clo0ure o. the
in.ormant>0 identit- Hi0 relevant and helB.ul to the de.en0e o. an accu0ed" or i0 e00ential to
a .air determination o. a cau0e"H the <urden i0 on the de.endant to demon0trate the need
.or the di0clo0ure.
, trial court need not reAuire di0clo0ing the identit- o. a relia<le in.ormant =here
the 0ole ground .or 0ee?ing that in.ormation i0 to e0ta<li0h the e)i0tence o. Bro<a<le
cau0e .or arre0t. (i)en>0 reAue0t .or di0clo0ure e)Bre00e0 hi0 concern there ma- not have
<een an in.ormant or that Bolice lied a0 to the in.ormation related to them. ,n in camera
hearing I=ithout Bre0ence o. de.endant or hi0 la=-er; could have 0erved to alla- the0e
- 204 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.ear0:
&hrough di0clo0ure o. the in.ormer>0 identit- to the trial Judge" and 0uch
0u<0eAuent inAuirie0 <- the Judge a0 ma- <e nece00ar-" the :overnment can <e Brotected
.rom an- 0igni.icant" unnece00ar- imBairment o. 0ecrec-" -et the de.endant can <e 0aved
.rom =hat could <e 0eriou0 Bolice mi0conduct.
Nonethele00" a di0trict court need not conduct an in camera hearing =henever the
identit- o. an in.ormant i0 reAue0ted.
1n 5.S. v. :ordon" 173 (.3d 7*1 I1+th Cir. 1999; the court held that a de.endant
0ee?ing to .orce di0clo0ure o. an in.ormant>0 identit- ha0 the <urden to 0ho= the
in.ormant>0 te0timon- i0 relevant or e00ential to the .air determination o. de.endant>0 ca0e.
H8here it i0 clear that the in.ormant cannot aid the de.en0e" the government>0 intere0t in
?eeBing 0ecret the in.ormant>0 identit- mu0t Brevail over the de.endant>0 a00erted right o.
di0clo0ure.H
&he in.ormant>0 role in :ordon>0 arre0t =a0 e)tremel- limited. 2e did not detain
:ordon" and did not BarticiBate in or =itne00 :ordon>0 detention or the tran0action in
=hich :ordon BurBortedl- agreed to tran0Bort cocaine in e)change .or mone-. 8e have
re.u0ed di0clo0ure in 0imilar ca0e0 =here the in.ormant ha0 limited in.ormation" =a0 not
Bre0ent during commi00ion o. the o..en0e" and cannot Brovide an- evidence that i0 not
cumulative or e)culBator-.
1n 5.S. v. 2ic?man" 1%1 (.3d 44* I%th Cir. 199$; I!ever0ed on other ground0 in
179 (.3d 23+ I%th Cir. 199$;" the court held that it =a0 not nece00ar- to di0clo0e the
identit- o. an in.ormant.N&hi0 circuit ha0 cra.ted a three'Bart te0t to determine =hether
di0clo0ure o. a ICC1P0; identit- i0 nece00ar-. 8e e)amine: 1; the in.ormant>0 degree o.
- 205 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
involvement in the crime9 2; the helB.ulne00 o. the di0clo0ure to the de.en0e9 and 3; the
:overnment>0 intere0t in non di0clo0ure. ,0 to the .ir0t Brong" =e have held that mere
HtiB0ter0H are not 0o clo0el- related to a crime a0 to reAuire the di0clo0ure o. their identit-.
*7
1n 5.S. v. 4angum" 1++ (.3d 1*4 IDC Cir. 199*; 4angum argued that he
needed to intervie= the ICC1; in order to determine =hether the CC1 might have Blanted
the gun in the ?naB0ac? in order to helB 0ecure an arre0t and curr- .avor =ith the
government. 2e never cited an- 0Beci.ic .act0 0uBBorting hi0 motion to di0clo0e the
identit- o. the in.ormant" <ut merel- =anted to intervie= the ICC1; <ecau0e the ICC1;
might Bo00e00 in.ormation that could e)culBate him.
&he court .ound that the de.endant =a0 not entitled to ?no= the ICC1P0; identit-
H<ecau0e there i0 no evidence in the record 0uBBorting the De.endant>0 0Beculation that
the ICC1; activel- BarticiBated in the o..en0e.H 2e .ailed to meet hi0 <urden <- H0ho=ing
that the in.ormant>0 te0timon- i0 nece00ar- to hi0 de.en0e 0o a0 to Ju0ti.- Blacing the
in.ormant>0 0a.et- in JeoBard-.H
M4ere 0Beculation that the ICC1; ma- Bo00i<l- <e o. 0ome a00i0tance i0 in0u..icient
to meet thi0 <urden. &o overcome the Bu<lic intere0t in Brotection o. the ICC1;"H the
de.endant mu0t 0ho= that the ICC1; =a0 Han actual BarticiBant in or a =itne00 to the
o..en0e charged"H and identit- i0 Hnece00ar- to the de.en0e.H
5.S. v. (ield0" 113 (.3d 313 I2d Cir. 1997; :overnment i0 not generall- reAuired
to di0clo0e the identit- o. ICC1P0;. 1t0 intere0t in Brotecting anon-mit- o. ICC1P0; =ho
.urni0h in.ormation regarding violation0 o. la= i0 0trong'' =ithholding a ICC1P0; identit-
imBrove0 the chance0 that the Ber0on =ill continue Broviding in.ormation and encourage0
- 206 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Botential ICC1P0; to aid the government.
&he de.endant <ear0 the <urden o. 0ho=ing the need .or di0clo0ure o. a ICC1P0;
identit-" and mu0t e0ta<li0h that" a<0ent 0uch di0clo0ure" he =ill <e deBrived o. hi0 right to
a .air trial.
Even i." a0 the de.endant0 claim" the in.ormant>0 in.ormation =a0 uncorro<orated
and con0tituted the <ul? o. the Bro<a<le cau0e uBon =hich the Bolice relied" the di0trict
court>0 in camera intervie= o. the ICC1;" conducted =ith a vie= to matter0 de.en0e coun0el
identi.ied in =riting a0 Botentiall- relevant" adeAuatel- Brotected de.endant0> right0. ,n in
camera intervie= o. a ICC1;that .ind0 no I0u<0tantial; incon0i0tenc- =ith Bolice te0timon-
can mitigate an- concern that the ICC1P0; te0timon- =ould in .act <e u0e.ul to the de.en0e
5.S. v. @ime" 99 (.3d $7+ I$th Cir. 199*;. @ime argue0 that the di0clo0ure o.
C1P0 identit- =a0 nece00ar- to te0t the veracit- o. hi0 or her in.ormation and the Auantum
o. Bro<a<le cau0e <ehind the a..idavit o..ered in 0uBBort o. the aBBlication .or the
interceBtion o. =ire and oral communication0. But @ime o..er0 no <a0i0 other than <ald
0Beculation .or hi0 a00ertion that 0uch a di0clo0ure and an oBBortunit- to intervie= C1'1
=ould allo= him to imBeach C1'1>0 a..idavit te0timon-. &he movant>0 <urden HreAuire0
more than mere 0Beculation that the te0timon- o. the in.ormant might Brove to <e helB.ul
to the de.en0e.H
1n.ormation .rom #ictim or 8itne00
:ate0" held that citiOen'in.ormant i0 Bre0umed relia<le unli?e a criminal C1
1n Ea0ton v. Cit- o. Boulder Colorado" 77* (.2d 1441I1+th Cir. 19$%;
&he Court held that M=hen e)amining in.ormant evidence u0ed to 0uBBort claim o.
*$
- 207 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bro<a<le cau0e .or =arrant .or arre0t" or =arrantle00 arre0t" 0?eBtici0m and care.ul
0crutin- u0uall- .ound in ca0e0 involving in.ormant0" 0ometime0 anon-mou0" .rom
criminal milieu" i0 aBBroBriatel- rela)ed i. in.ormant i0 identi.ied victim or ordinar-
citiOen =itne00.
Becau0e citiOen =itne00e0 are Bre0umBtivel- relia<le" the o..icer0 in thi0 0ituation
had no dut- to e)amine .urther the <a0i0 o. the =itne00> ?no=ledge or tal? =ith another
=itne00e0. &he BroBo0ition that Brivate citiOen =itne00e0 or crime victim0 are Bre0umed
relia<le doe0 not Hdi0Ben0e =ith the reAuirement that the in.ormant ... .urni0h underl-ing
.act0 0u..icientl- detailed to cau0e a rea0ona<le Ber0on to <elieve a crime had <een
committed and the named 0u0Bect =a0 the BerBetrator.H IKu0t a0 Bolice need to 0tate .act0
learned <- them to Ju0ti.- !CS or /CC;
5.S. v. Butler" 74 (.3d 91* I9th Cir.199*; Court held M-ou loo? at the totalit- o.
the circum0tance0 to determine /CC. M/CC can <e <a0ed on hear0a- ... or on in.ormation
rela-ed through o..icial Bolice channel0 ... and through the collective ?no=ledge o. Bolice
o..icer0 involved in an inve0tigation even i. 0ome o. thi0 in.ormation =a0 not ?no=n <-
the arre0ting o..icer Iand; i. an unAue0tiona<l- hone0t citiOen come0 .or=ard =ith a
reBort o. criminal activit- =hich i. .a<ricated =ould 0u<Ject him to criminal lia<ilit- =e
have .ound rigorou0 0crutin- o. the <a0i0 o. ?no=ledge unnece00ar-.N
&ang=all v. Stuc?e-" 13% (.3d %1+ I7th Cir. 199$; Court held that H8hen an
o..icer received hi0 in.ormation .rom 0ome Ber0on''normall- the Butative victim or e-e
=itne00''=ho it 0eem0 rea0ona<le to <elieve i0 telling the truth"> he ha0I/CC;.H No deeB0eated
logic or rationale underlie0 thi0 BrinciBle. I/CC; i0 a common 0en0e determination"
mea0ured under a rea0ona<lene00 0tandard.
- 208 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sharrar v. (el0ing" 12$ (.3d $1+ I3rd Cir. 1997; Court held that MEven i. the
o..icer heard the victimP0 claim that another Ber0on attac?ed her it =a0 rea0ona<le .or the
o..icer to a00e00 her demeanor" .ind her 0tor- credi<le" and rel- on her 0u<0eAuent
identi.ication o. her hu0<and a0 the attac?er. 8hen an o..icer ha0 received a relia<le 1D
<- a victim o. hi0 or her attac?er" the Bolice have /CC to arre0t. Same ruling 6ee v.
Sand<erg" 13* (.3d 94 I2d Cir. 1997;.
3..icial Channel0
8hitle- v. 8arden" 4+1 5.S. %*+ I1971; I(ello= o..icer rule;. ,n o..icer =ho
doe0 not Ber0onall- Bo00e00 0u..icient in.ormation to con0titute Bro<a<le cau0e ma-
neverthele00 ma?e a valid arre0t i. he act0 uBon the direction or a0 a re0ult o. a
communication .rom a .ello= o..icer and the Bolice" a0 a =hole" Bo00e00 0u..icient
in.ormation to con0titute Bro<a<le cau0e. /eoBle v. (reeman" **$ /.2d 1371 IColo.
19$3;.
1n Doleman v. State" 1+7 Nev. 4+9 I1991;" Bolice arre0ted a murder 0u0Bect <a0ed
on in.ormation .rom an in.ormant and citiOen =itne00 I.act0 are 0ome=hat comBlicated;.
Even though the arre0ting o..icer ma- not have <een a=are o. each and ever- .act
included in the Bro<a<le cau0e" collectivel- he and the other o..icer0 involved in the
inve0tigation did Bo00e00 Bro<a<le cau0e and thi0 made the arre0t valid. &hi0 deci0ion
*9
e)tend0 the H.ello= o..icerH rule to it0 .ulle0t.
/er0onal 3<0ervation0 <- Bolice
&hi0 i0 the mo0t common ingredient o. Bro<a<le cau0e ' =hat -ou 0ee" hear" 0mell"
.eel or ta0te ma- give Bro<a<le cau0e <- it0el. or a0 corro<oration o. in.ormation received
- 209 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.rom in.ormant.
Di0creBanc- <et=een in.ormation received and 0u0Bect con.ronted
&hi0 doe0 not automaticall- mean that there i0 no Bro<a<le cau0e. Some
di0creBancie0 normal due to human nature. Bro=n v. 5. S." 3*% (.2d 97* ID.C. Cir.
19**;" =here Bolice had de0criBtion o. ro<<er a0 <lac? male" driving maroon 19%4 (ord
and a<out a mile a=a-" minute0 later" Bolice 0a= car =hich =a0 19%2 maroon (ord and
had occuBant =ith di..erent clothing and height =a0 *H o.. '' 2eld: Bro<a<le cau0e
e)i0ted" de0Bite the di0creBanc- to 0toB the car and arre0t occuBant.
5.S. v. &ilmon" 19 (.3d 1221 I7th Cir.1994; /olice had /CC to arre0t &ilmon .or
<an? ro<<er- once he 0teBBed out o. car and o..icer0 could comBare him =ith de0criBtion
o. ro<<er" due to .act that Bolice alread- identi.ied hi0 di0tinctivel- mar?ed car9 although
de.endant =ore di..erent clothe0 .rom tho0e de0cri<ed <- ro<<er- e-e=itne00e0" and t=o
hour0 had Ba00ed 0ince ro<<er-.
6allemand v. 5. !. 1. " 9 (.3d 214 I10t Cir. 1993; ,..idavit =hich 0et .orth
victim>0 ver0ion o. raBe and .ollo=ed it =ith de0criBtion o. victim 0electing arre0tee>0
BhotograBh .rom Bicture arra- and Bo0itivel- identi.-ing him a0 the man =ho raBed her
Brovided Bro<a<le cau0e .or arre0t" even though there =ere di0creBancie0 <et=een
arre0tee>0 aBBearance and de0criBtion o. the BerBetrator.
5.S. v. #aleO" 79* (.2d 24 I2nd Cir. 19$*; 3<0erving o..icer>0 de0criBtion o.
cocaine 0eller =a0 adeAuatel- detailed" de0Bite hi0 0ilence on matter o. 0eller>0 .acial hair"
and de.endant" =ho =a0 in immediate area o. drug tran0action" 0u..icientl- .it de0criBtion
to give another o..icer Bro<a<le cau0e to arre0t de.endant =ithin 0hort 0Bace o. time
.ollo=ing tran0action.
- 210 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
*. N3 NEED &3 M/!ESE!#EN /!3B,B6E C,5SE
(reAuentl- an o..icer 0toB0 Ior arre0t0; a Ber0on .or a 0mall o..en0e and then
continue0 the inve0tigation and .ind0 /CC .or a maJor crime. 1n 0uch ca0e0" the o..icer
o.ten doe0nPt MchargeN the Ber0on =ith the initial" 0ometime0 Bett-" o..en0e. 1n the Ba0t
0ome Judge0 have ruled that thi0 ma?e0 the entire arre0t <ad <ecau0e the o..icer didnPt
MBre0erve the Bro<a<le cau0e.N &hi0 i0 not the la=. 1n Scott v. State" 11+ Nev. *22
I1994; the de.endant =a0 in a car 0toBBed .or an imBroBerl- a..i)ed licen0e Blate. ,.ter
the 0toB it =a0 determined that Scott =a0 an e)'.elon and had a gun. 2e =a0 arre0ted .or
that" <ut no citation =a0 i00ued. &he Nevada SuBreme Court 0aid thi0 made no di..erence
in the validit- o. the 0toB. 1n 5.S. v. 8ood-" %% (.3d 12%7 I7th Cir. 199%; the court 0aid"
7+
M,n arre0t ma- <e Ber.ectl- rea0ona<le even i. the Bolice o..icer ultimatel- doe0 not
charge the 0u0Bect =ith the o..en0e giving ri0e to the o..icerP0 Bro<a<le cau0e
determination.
7. 82EN 8,!!,N& NEEDED 1N ,!!ES& S1&5,&13N
&he SuBreme Court 0aid in 5. S. v. 8at0on" 423 5.S. 411 I197*;" that -ou don>t
need an arre0t =arrant .or a la=.ul arre0t in a Bu<lic Blace ''Bro<a<le cau0e i0 enough"
even i. -ou had time to get an arre0t =arrant. Same ruling in (lorida v. 8hite" %2* 5.S.
%%9 I1999;" 5.S. v. 6evine" $+ (.3d 129 I199*;" 5.S. v. Sno=" $2 (.3d 93% I1+th
Cir.199*;" and numerou0 other ca0e0.
M&he SuBreme Court ha0 re.u0ed to attach 0igni.icance to the .act that the Bolice
had amBle time to get an arre0t =arrant <ut declined to do 0o. (or an arre0t in a Bu<lic
Blace ... the onl- reAuirement i0 Bro<a<le cau0e.N 5.S. v. De4a0i" 4+ (.3d 13+* I10t
- 211 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Cir.1994;.
&here are t=o 0ituation0 =here a =arrant mu0t <e o<tained in arre0t 0ituation0
Iunle00 Bolice can Brove an emergenc- or con0ent e)ceBtion e)i0t0; <oth involving entr-
into Bremi0e0 to arre0t. &he0e are the H/,7&3N !56EH and the HS&E,:,6D
!56E.H
Ia; D1SC5SS13N 3N /,7&3N !56E
/a-ton v. Ne= 7or?" 44% 5.S. %73 I19$+;" the court held that Bolice cannot ma?e
a =arrantle00 non'con0en0ual entr- into a 0u0Bect>0 home to ma?e an arre0t unle00 e)igent
circum0tance0 e)i0t.
1n /a-ton" Bolice develoBed BCc to arre0t 0u0Bect .or murder occurring t=o da-0
earlier. /olice =ent to 0u0Bect>0 home =here light0 =ere on and mu0ic Bla-ing. 8hen
no<od- an0=ered ?noc? or door" Bolice made entr-. /a-ton =a0n>t home <ut 0hell ca0ing
to murder =eaBon =a0 in Blain vie= and =a0 0eiOed.
&he 5.S. SuBreme Court ordered thi0 evidence 0uBBre00ed 0tating that the Brivac-
intere0t in a home =a0 ver- high and Bolice needed either an arre0t =arrant .or /a-ton Ior
a 0earch =arrant .or hi0 home; to enter hi0 home.
,lthough the 5.S. SuBreme Court ha0 not decided all Bo00i<le 0u<'i00ue0 that
ari0e a.ter /a-ton ' the .ollo=ing rule0 have <een aBBlied <- high ran?ing State and
(ederal court0.
I1; 1. Bolice are other=i0e la=.ull- in a Ber0on>0 home" .or e)amBle" =ith a 0earch
=arrant" and Bro<a<le cau0e to arre0t aBBear0 it i0 3@ to arre0t =ithout arre0t =arrant.
4ahl<erg v. 4entOer" 9*$ (.2d 772 I$th Cir. 1992;" Kone0 v. Cit- o. Denver" $%4 (.2d
12+* I1+th Cir. 19$$;.
- 212 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I2; 1n /eoBle v. 8hite" %12 N.E.2d *77 I1ll. 19$7;"the court held that =hether a
71
Blace i0 HhomeH deBend0 on thing0 li?e length o. 0ta-" regular u0e" relation0hiB to other
occuBant0" 0toring Bo00e00ion0 there and Ba-ment o. rent.
I3; &he /a-ton rule can <e violated even i. Bolice don>t Bh-0icall- enter the
home" 0o held in 8alter0 v. State" 1+* Nev. 4% I199+;. 8alter0 <ecame a 0u0Bect in a
murder ca0e. &he ne)t morning" =ithout o<taining a =arrant" Bolice u0ed a helicoBter
and <ullhorn and ordered him out o. hi0 home. 2e comBlied" =a0 arre0ted" and =a0 given
4iranda =arning0 and gave an incriminating 0tatement during the 1++ mile drive to the
Bolice 0tation. &he Court held the 0tatement 0hould <e 0uBBre00ed 0ince 8alter0 =a0
technicall- arre0ted in hi0 home I<- 0urrounding it =ith Bolice and ordering him out;
=ithout a =arrant and the con.e00ion =a0 the H.ruitH o. an illegal =arrantle00 arre0t.
INote: &hi0 =a0 overruled a.ter the 5.S. SuBreme Court deci0ion in Ne= 7or? v. 2arri0"
11+ S.Ct. 1*4+ I199+; holding that even a.ter /a-ton violation Bolice giving 4iranda
a=a- .rom re0idence or at Bolice 0tation 3@P0 interrogation;.
3ther court0 have ruled the 0ame in H0urroundH orH<ullhornH ca0e0. 5. S. v.
,OOa=-" 7$4 (.2d $9+ I9th Cir. 19$%;" 5. S. v. 4aeO" $72 (.2d 1444 I1+th Cir. 19$9;" 5.
S. v. 4organ" 744 (.2d 121% I*th Cir. 19$4;.
I4; &he /a-ton rule aBBlie0 to the 0u0Bect>0 Blace o. <u0ine00 a0 =ell a0 hi0 home.
I%; 4o0t court0 hold in addition to the =arrant reAuirement Bolice al0o need
Mrea0ona<le <elie.N Inot Bro<a<le cau0e; to <elieve a Barticular Bremi0e0 i0 that o. the
0u0Bect and that the 0u0Bect i0 HhomeH at the time o. Bolice entr-. 5.S. v. !i00e" $3 (.2d
212 I$th Cir. 199*;Ho..icer0 e)ecuting an arre0t =arrant mu0t have a >rea0ona<le <elie. that
- 213 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the 0u0Bect re0ide0 at the Blace to <e entered ... and have rea0on to <elieve that the 0u0Bect
i0 Bre0ent> at the time the =arrant i0 e)ecuted. &he 0u0BectP0 home mean0 he ha0 common
authorit- or 0ome other 0igni.icant relation0hiB to the Bremi0e0 even i. the Bremi0e0 i0
o=ned <- a 3rd Ber0onH M!ea0ona<le <elie.N ruling .ollo=ed in 5.S. v. 6auter" %7 (.3d
212 I2d Cir.199%; 5.S. v. 4agluta" 44 (.3d 1%3+I11th Cir.199%;5.S. v. !oute" 1+4 (.3d
%9I%th Cir.199*;.
1n #aldeO v. /heter0" 172 (.3d 122+ I1+th Cir. 1999; Court held that the BroBer
inAuir- i0 =hether there i0 a rea0ona<le <elie. that the 0u0Bect re0ide0 at the Blace to <e
entered ... and =hether the o..icer0 have rea0on to <elieve that the 0u0Bect i0 Bre0ent. 1n
5.S. v. Edmond0" %2 (.3d 123* I3d Cir.199%; although Hthe in.ormation availa<le to the
agent0 clearl- did not e)clude the Bo00i<ilit- that the 0u0Bect =a0 not in the aBartment"
the agent0 had rea0ona<le ground0 .or concluding that he =a0 there.
1n 5nited State0 v. ,l<re?t0en" 1%1 (.3d 9%1 I9th Cir.199$; the court recentl-
cited =ith aBBroval <oth !oute and !i00e .or the BroBo0ition that o..icer0 e)ecuting an
arre0t =arrant mu0t have H0ome rea0on to <elieve that the de.endant might live at and <e
Bre0ent =ithin the Bremi0e0H entered" ma?ing no mention o. an- higher 0tandard o.
?no=ledge.
I*; No need to have =arrant in hand. 8henever Bo00i<le o..icer0 0hould have a
coB- o. the arre0t =arrant" <ut a0 long a0 a .ello= o..icer con.irm0 that the =ritten 0igned
72
=arrant i0 in e)i0tence thi0 i0 0u..icient. 5.S. v. 4unoO" 1%+ (.3d 4+1 I%th Cir. 199$;.
I7; 4i0demeanor =arrant0. 8henever Bo00i<le o..icer0 0hould not ma?e a .orced
home entr- to 0erve a mi0demeanor arre0t =arrant. 2o=ever" N!S 171.13$ aBBear0 to
- 214 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contemBlate a hou0e entr- to ma?e arre0t on a mi0demeanor =arrant. See al0o" Kone0 v.
State" %13 So. 2d $ I,la. 19$*;" 6-on0 v. State" 7$7 /.2d 4*+ I3?la. 19$9;. &he Nevada
SuBreme Court imBlied in 2atle- v. State" 1++ Nev. 214 I19$4;" that Bolice could ma?e
an in home arre0t on a mi0demeanor =arrant a0 long a0 it =a0 not a Brete)t to gain
evidence re.erence an unrelated .elon- inve0tigation.
I$; 50e o. !u0e. N3&E: 7ou cannot u0e a ru0e to gain entr- into a Bremi0e0 to
avoid the /a-ton =arrant reAuirement. 2o=ever" the maJorit- o. ca0e0 on thi0 i00ue hold
that -ou can u0e a ru0e to get the 0u<Ject =hom -ou =i0h to arre0t I=ithout a =arrant; to
e)it the re0idence.
&he rationale o. the0e ca0e0 i0 roc?'0olid. &he BurBo0e o. the /a-ton rule i0 to
Brevent =arrantle00 Bolice entrie0 into a re0idence to arre0t. Since Bolice can legall-
arre0t out0ide a re0idence =ith Bro<a<le cau0e and =ithout a =arrant" =hat di..erence
doe0 it ma?e i. Bolice u0e a ru0e to get the 0u0Bect to leave the Bremi0e0 in0tead o.
=aiting out0ide until the 0u0Bect le.t on hi0 o=nD &he an0=er i0 o<viou0 ' no di..erence
and no /a-ton violation.
73
&he .ollo=ing ca0e0 uBheld u0e o. a ru0e to get Ber0on out o. Bremi0e0:
1n 5.S. v. !engi.o" $%$ (.2d $++ I10t Cir. 19$$; , government agent>0 teleBhone
call to de.endant0> motel room =arning them that there had <een HBro<lem0H =ith a
cocaine deliver- and that it =ould <e <e0t i. the- le.t the room and the area did not
imBroBerl- avoid reAuirement .or arre0t =arrant <- arti.iciall- creating e)igent
circum0tance.
CONCLUSION
- 215 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ba0ed uBon the .oregoing the under0igned re0Bect.ull- reAue0t0 that thi0 Court 0et a0ide it0
3rder o. Decem<er 1*
th
" 2+11" Set ,0ide the Summar- ContemBt 3rder; and another relie. thi0
Court deem0 Ju0t. ,BBellant Declare0 under
Benalt- o. BerJur-" Bur0uant to N!S %3.+4%" that the a00ertion0 in thi0 document are true and correct.
AFFIRMATION PURSUANT TO NRS ./01-2/2
&he under0igned doe0 here<- a..irm that the Breceding document doe0 not contain the 0ocial
0ecurit- num<er o. an- Ber0on.
Dated: (e<ruar- 22" 2+12
CSC Zach CoughlinFFFFFFFF
Zach Coughlin" De.endant
- 216 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SER3ICE
/ur0uant to N!C/ %I<;" 1 certi.- that 1 0erved a coB- o. the .oregoing document uBon the
.ollo=ing Bart- <- .a)ing" emailing" droBBing !. at their o..ice" and Blacing a true and correct coB-
o. the .oregoing document in the u0 mail. addre00ed tB:
Kohn @adlic" E0A.
!eno Cit- ,ttorne->0 3..ice ' Criminal Divi0on
/.3. Bo) 19++ !eno " N# $9%+%
&el: 77%'334'2+%+ (a): 77%'334'242+
ro<ert0BTreno.gov
,ttorne- .or Cit- o. !eno
!eno 4uniciBal Courth
Date thi0 (e<ruar- 22" 2+12:
CSC Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin" /lainti..
- 217 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INDE4 TO E4HI1ITS
1. E)hi<it 1: Kanuar- 1+
th
" 2+12 email .rom !4C 1nterim Court ,dmini0trator Ca00andra Kac?0on
=ith ,ttached Decem<er 1*
th
" 2+11 3rder o. Kudge 2o=ard9 (our I4; Bage0
and ,ll email0 .rom ZachCoughlinThotmail.com to !eno4uni!ecord0T!eno.gov .rom 1+C4C11 to
Bre0ent9 citing to attached Bd. .iling0 that 0hould <e included in the !ecord on ,BBeal" -t are not in
0ome in0tance09 (ort- (our I44; Bage0.
- 218 -

3 12 12 Coughlin's MTN To Return Cell Phones, Set Aside Summary Contempt Order, Notice of Appeal Thereof Etc RMC Holmes 26800 0204 62337 Stamped Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 12 12 Coughlin's MTN To Return Cell Phones, Set Aside Summary Contempt Order, Notice of Appeal Thereof Etc RMC Holmes 26800 0204 62337 Stamped Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

You might also like