Profiling Muslims is a bad idea and it’s unconstitutional

June 21, 2016

In his OpEd yesterday in the Washington Post titled, Trump’s special version of Jim Crow — for Muslims, Eugene Robinson wrote,

On Sunday, “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson reminded Trump that last year he had raised the idea of “profiling” for Muslims and asked him to elaborate. Trump’s response: “Well, I think profiling is something that we’re going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it,” he said, naming Israel, and “we have to start using common sense.”

Reuters reported late last week,

Muslim-Americans have repeatedly informed authorities of fellow Muslims they fear might be turning to extremism, law enforcement officials say, contrary to a claim by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump this week.

“They don’t report them,” Trump said in a CNN interview on Monday, in the wake of the mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub of 49 people by an American Muslim who claimed allegiance to Islamic State. “For some reason, the Muslim community does not report people like this.”

But FBI director James Comey said, “They do not want people committing violence, either in their community or in the name of their faith, and so some of our most productive relationships are with people who see things and tell us things who happen to be Muslim.

“It’s at the heart of the FBI’s effectiveness to have good relationships with these folks,” Comey said at a press conference following the Orlando shootings.

In addition profiling Muslims is a violation of the reasonable-suspicion-based-on-articulable-objective-facts test of the 4th Amendment. It also violates the Freedom of Religion Clause of the First amendment.

Donald Trump and his supporters like to base their arguments on “common sense.”

Hogwash. If we relied on “common sense,” for example, we would still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe with the Sun, the planets and the stars revolving around it. We also would believe in magic, the supernatural and witches who consorted with the Devil. In Europe from approximately 1480 to 1650, the Inquisition murdered approximately, 80,000 to 100,000 mostly poor and elderly women for practicing witchcraft. After obtaining confessions through the use of torture, they burned them at the stake.

Since the Age of Enlightenment, we’ve been relying on evidence-based reasoning to question common-sense assumptions about reality. In the name of “common sense,” Trump and his merry band of idiots want to turn back time and recreate the witch craze. He has already promised to use torture to extract confessions. How many Muslims is he going to detain, torture and kill before we the people have to end the slaughter?

Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews less than a century ago.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Will Trump exterminate them?

We need to make sure he loses the election.


Could the prosecution’s case against Craig Wood be derailed by a warrantless search?

February 26, 2014

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Good Afternoon:

I recently commented in response to a question raised by Betty-Kath regarding the warrantless entry into Craig Wood’s house by the police to search for Hailey Owens and their use of information, which they acquired during that search, to obtain a warrant to search his house for evidence that he had kidnapped and detained her in his home.

I said I did not believe the warrantless entry would affect the outcome of the case.

I reconsider my answer today and explain why the warrantless entry could jeopardize the prosecution’s case.

Detective Neal McAmis referred to the warrantless entry into Wood’s residence in his affidavit attached to the complaint:

Officers did a safety sweep of the residence to search for Owens. When the officers got to the basement steps, they could smell a strong odor of bleach. The odor continued as they entered the basement. The officers informed me the basement floor was wet. They also said they saw bottles of bleach in the basement.

On 02/19/14, at 0128 Detective Barb obtained a signed search warrant to search Craig’s residence. Several crime scene technicians responded to the scene. In the basement the crime scene technicians located two plastic storage totes. They were stacked one on top of the other. There were papers and documents in the top tote. In the bottom tote was what appeared to be the body of a small child. The body was concealed inside two trash bags. The crime scene technicians removed the trash bags and confirmed it was the body of Owens.

(emphasis supplied)

Detective Barb also applied for a second search warrant of the residence a little over 12 hours later during the afternoon of February 19th. In that affidavit, he described what he found during the search earlier that day, including firearms, video cameras, a computer, digital storage media, child pornography, cleaning fluids, journals and bedding, and he requested a search warrant authorizing him to search for and seize those items.

He did not mention the earlier warrantless search.

The issues the court may have to consider before this case goes to trial are whether the initial warrantless safety sweep of the residence was unlawful and, assuming for the sake of argument that it was, the second issue is whether any information obtained during that search was used to obtain a subsequent search warrant.

If so, that may invalidate the search and result in the suppression of the evidence seized. Without that evidence, the prosecution might not be able to convict Wood.

The general rules:

(1) A search of a residence without a warrant is unlawful unless an occupant voluntarily consents to the search or exigent circumstances exist that would make it impractical and unreasonable to obtain a search warrant, such as an entry in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect (see United States v. Santana, 427 US 38 (1976)), an entry to prevent the destruction of evidence (see Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011)) or an entry to prevent someone from suffering imminent injury or death.

(2) The police cannot use “fruit from the poisonous tree” (i.e., information obtained unlawfully) to establish probable cause (i.e., reasonable grounds) to believe that a residence contains evidence of a crime.

Consent, hot pursuit and preventing the destruction of evidence are not applicable.

Thus, the question the court will have to resolve is whether the warrantless entry was reasonably necessary to prevent someone from suffering imminent injury or death.

The problem for the prosecution is that the police arrived at the residence before Wood arrived. They were waiting for him and when he arrived, they pulled into his driveway and parked behind him, preventing him from backing out. They took him into custody and transported him to the station house for interrogation.

The warrantless entry into his residence took place after Wood was removed from the scene.

With their only suspect in custody and no particular reason to believe that Hailey Owens was in the residence and in any immediate danger, if she was, I am not seeing any evidence that would justify a warrantless entry into his residence to prevent her from suffering imminent injury or death. Absent probable cause to believe that, the warrantless entry would be unlawful and any evidence seized as a result of it would not be admissible.

I also do not see them acting as though they believed she was endangered in the house. Moreover, the absence of any reference to the warrantless entry in the second affidavit for search warrant appears to have been a deliberate omission that the defense probably will interpret as deliberate.

The prosecution may be able to navigate its way through this potential disaster, if it can satisfy the court that (1) no information obtained during the warrantless entry was relied on to obtain a search warrant, or if they did rely on it, they relied on other independent evidence with which to establish probable cause, such that they would have discovered the evidence they seized even if the information obtained during the warrantless search were excised from the affidavit for the first search warrant that was issued at 0128 on February 19th.

How this potential issue is resolved may determine the outcome of this case.



The Full-Text Motion For Discretionary Review [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

December 22, 2011

For those of you following the legal case, the 26-page Kentucky Court of Appeals Published Opinion Affirming is available online at the Kentucky Court of Appeals site. Other documents, such as this one, while they are in the public domain, are not readily available. (One must file an open records request)

I am also going to make the opening brief and response available here, online, for the public. This first document is a Motion For Discretionary Review. It was filed with the Supreme Court in June of this year (2011). The attorney is The Honorable Julia K. Pearson.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY
FILE NO.2011-SC-000272

RACHEL LEATHERMAN MOVANT

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY RESPONDENT

MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

The Movant, Rachel Leatherman, comes by counsel and pursuant to CR 76.20, requests this Court to grant discretionary review of the decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Leatherman v. Commonwealth, 2008-CA-0849, which was decided on January 21, 2011. The Petition for Rehearing was denied on April 12, 2011. Ms. Leatherman explains the grounds for this motion below.

THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

1. The Movant’s name is Rachel Leatherman. Counsel for Movant is Hon. Julia K. Pearson, Assistant Public Advocate, Department of Public Advocacy, 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

2. The Respondent is the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Counsel for Respondent is Hon. Jack Conway, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Criminal Appellate Division, 1024 Capital Center Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

3. The Court of Appeals finally disposed of Movant’s case on April 12, 2011.

4. Neither Movant nor Respondent has a Petition for Rehearing or a Motion for Reconsideration pending in the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Rehearing filed in this case was denied on April 12, 2011.

THE MATERIAL FACTS

Sometime in the evening of June 28, 2006, a man identifying himself as Vernon Wilkey, residing on Queensway Drive in Paducah, called 911 and said, “there is a lady in a dark blue looks like a Buick LeSabre. I’d say it’s a late 80s, early 90s model. And I’ve got a license plate number. But she’s out here walking around in my neighbor’s yard. . . and writing stuff down and she’d talked to him and mentioned something about tar heroin and all that stuff.” Wilkey said the woman driving the car was white and that the vehicle had Washington state plates. Wilkey testified at trial that she “didn’t seem like she was really all together there.” He did not give the 911 operator that piece of information.

McCracken County Deputy Sheriff Eddie McGuire testified at trial that he received a dispatch about a suspicious person on Queensway Drive. He thought it took fifteen to twenty minutes to arrive on scene, where he looked for a car with Washington state license plates, but was unsuccessful. At the suppression hearing, McGuire testified when he entered the Queensway Drive neighborhood, he did not check with Vernon Wilkey to obtain any additional information, such as what time Wilkey encountered the woman, whether Wilkey saw her leave in a particular direction, whether Wilkey thought she was under the influence or whether the woman had said where she was going. McGuire testified that he spoke with Wilkey and took his written statement the next day, after he had arrested Ms. Leatherman.

At trial, the deputy testified that he had just come through the Metropolis Lake intersection when he saw a car with its left turn signal flashing. McGuire admitted that he did not know how fast he was driving as he drew alongside the vehicle.

“As I was passing the vehicle, she had her left blinker on as if she was going to turn out in the passing lane, but she never did. And then as I was going to go ahead and go past her, I noticed that the license plate—it was a Washington license plate that was the description that was also given at the time of the call. So when I noticed that, I slowed down and let her go back by me and then when I pulled in behind her, she pulled over.”

After McGuire pulled in behind her, the woman pulled over to the shoulder. He thought that action was as suspicious as the woman leaving her left turn signal blinking, so he pulled over to the side and activated his emergency lights. McGuire said as he walked up to the vehicle, he noticed that the driver’s pants were unbuttoned and unzipped, but belted. Even so, Rachel Leatherman “promptly” handed her identification and proof of insurance to Deputy McGuire. He ordered her to get out of the car and stand behind it. McGuire said she had no problem getting out of the car. In fact, he said that if she had been unsteady on her feet or slurring her speech, he would have documented it in his citation.

Sometime after that, Deputy Jason Walters came to the scene. The men searched the car for contraband, but came up with nothing. Later, Officer Gretchen Dawes arrived and searched Leatherman. Before she arrived, however, McGuire testified that Leatherman had emptied her two front pockets. He could not remember whether Leatherman had buttoned her pants at any time during the automobile and personal searches.

Neither Officer Dawes nor Deputy Walters testified at the suppression hearing. However, as her testimony at trial showed, Dawes’ search was not a simple Terry pat-down. Dawes searched the inside rear pockets of Rachel Leatherman’s jeans and made her open the front of her pants so she could search Leatherman’s crotch. Dawes made Leatherman lift her shirt so she could search her breasts for concealed controlled substances. Even McGuire conceded that Dawes’s search was “thorough.”

Deputy McGuire agreed that “[u]nder the circumstances, [Dawes] was not only looking for weapons but also looking for possible drugs,” but found none. McGuire did not see Dawes search Leatherman’s back pockets, but he assumed she did so as part of that thorough search. Finally, McGuire said that en route to Lourdes Hospital, he did not see Leatherman moving in any sort of fashion to indicate that she was trying to hide something.

A thorough search by a trained police officer would presumably “sanitize” a suspect before she is handcuffed and placed into a police car. In other words, how is it possible that Rachel Leatherman held onto a baggie with rock cocaine through a search of her vehicle and her person? Officer Dawes offered her speculation at trial. She said she was told only that the deputies wanted a female officer to search a female suspect. The deputies did not tell her anything about the case such as whether she was supposed to conduct a Terry pat-down or the more thorough search incident to arrest. Interestingly, Dawes said that if she had prior knowledge that Leatherman had drugs on her person, she would have done an even more thorough search.

Deputy McGuire and the two backup officers searched Ms. Leatherman’s person and her car for about 1.25 hours. That search yielded no illegal drugs, no drug residue and no paraphernalia. Despite the fact that Leatherman had not committed a traffic violation and a PBT (Portable Breath Test) registered no alcohol, McGuire arrested her for Driving under the Influence and transported her to Lourdes Hospital for a blood draw.

Subsequent analysis found no alcohol or drugs in Leatherman’s blood.

McGuire was certain Leatherman was wearing a watch, but only thought it was on her right arm. McGuire’s story was that as he assisted her out of the car at the hospital, he noticed that Leatherman had dropped her watch and a small baggie containing a substance consistent with a rock of cocaine. He did not confront Leatherman at that time. McGuire was unsure how long the two remained at the hospital. Once he arrived at the McCracken County Jail and booked Ms. Leatherman, he ran a field test for heroin. That test came back negative.

Rachel Leatherman was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree, Tampering with Physical Evidence and Driving an Automobile under the Influence. She was convicted on all three charges and sentenced to eight years.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. A trial court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law after holding a suppression hearing. RCr 9.78. Is it appropriate for a trial court to render findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial, using information gained at the trial, but not the suppression hearing?

The panel concluded:

Based upon the 911 call, during which the caller described a woman. . . who was committing criminal activity, and the undisputed fact that Leatherman pulled to the side of the road and stopped before Deputy McGuire activated his emergency lights, we hold that there was no constitutional violation in the investigatory stop.

Leatherman v. Commonwealth, 2011 WL 181251, *7 (Ky. App., January 21, 2011).

Walking around a neighborhood and saying the word “heroin” are not criminal acts.

The trial court’s second conclusion of law was that: “[t]he combination of a report of an unknown person, driving a Washington state licensed vehicle in a Paducah, Kentucky residential area, asking about tar heroin, later observed to signal a left turn but pull off the roadway in the right, constitutes reasonable suspicion to investigate and possibly cite for improper signal. TR 222.

The court’s third conclusion was that “[a] report of suspicious activity by a person who identifies himself by name, phone number and address is presumptively reliable.” TR 222. These conclusions came not after the suppression hearing, but after the trial.

The court should have relied only upon the information in the 911 call, not evidence it heard at trial, in order to decide whether Deputy McGuire had reasonable suspicion to stop Rachel Leatherman. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985).

The information in the particular 911 call left a good deal to be desired. Vernon Wilkey did not tell the dispatcher that Leatherman was asking “where may I get black tar heroin” “do you have any black tar heroin” or even “does a drug dealer live in this neighborhood”? He simply told the dispatcher that she “mentioned” tar heroin. All Deputy McGuire had was a dispatch that a woman was walking around a neighborhood in McCracken County and mentioned tar heroin. McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing: “[a]t the time we responded, the only information that we had was the fact that she had come up to his house and asked about heroin.” TR 155. He admitted that he talked to Wilkey after he arrested Leatherman. Id., emphasis added. He admitted at trial that he had no idea when the woman had made contact with the neighbor (or Wilkey, for that matter). VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:05:04.

The Fourth Amendment requires that reasonable suspicion comes only when the police believe criminal activity is currently afoot. See Joshua v. DeWitt, 341 F.3d 430, 446 (6th Cir. 2003), citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968); emphasis in original. Was the woman “asking about 218A” doing a survey for the local newspaper or television station? Doing surveys for local media is a perfectly legal action. Was she a teacher doing a survey for a local high school civics or social studies class? Doing those sorts of surveys is also a legal act. But McGuire jumped to the conclusion that Rachel Leatherman had to be committing some sort of crime because she was talking to people in a neighborhood and mentioned tar heroin. Unfortunately for McGuire, in Terry, supra, the Supreme Court made clear that the officer’s reasonable suspicion must be made from the facts and the “specific reasonable inferences he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.” 392 U.S. at 21; emphasis added. McGuire’s suspicion was not based upon reasonable inferences from the facts he had at hand.

The panel ignored United States and Kentucky Supreme Court precedent in finding those facts were enough predictive information with which Deputy McGuire could arrest Ms. Leatherman. In Florida v. J.L., Florida officers received a phone call that a young, black male who was wearing a plaid shirt and standing with two other males at a bus stop was carrying a gun. Officers arrived and found the young man wearing a plaid shirt standing at the bus stop and arrested him. The United States Supreme Court found that the tip gave police no independent reason to suspect that J.L. was up to a nefarious act. 529 U.S. 266, 274 (2000).
In Collins v. Commonwealth, this Court found that a tip claiming that a man driving a white Chevrolet Blazer with a certain license plate threw alcohol at another vehicle parked at a gas station was likewise not enough information that something criminal was afoot.

As in J.L., the tip provided in this matter contained no predictive information; rather, it consisted almost entirely of information readily available to a casual bystander, such as Appellant’s license plate number, his direction of travel, and the make and model of his vehicle. Thus, Trooper Oliver was left with no predictive information to corroborate, or other means by which to verify that the tipster had intimate knowledge of any illegal behavior. 142 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Ky. 2004).

If the panel’s Orwellian holding remains valid, the simple acts of “walking around” in a neighbor’s yard, “writing stuff down” and merely uttering the words tar and heroin, without any further indication of intent to buy or sell, then, in contravention of federal and state case law, the police are absolutely free to engage in fishing expeditions.

Moreover, any person—axe to grind or not–who gives his name and address may pick up a phone and report some “crime” and have that report be deemed reliable. That analysis flies in the face of J.L., supra; Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), Hensley, supra; and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

“Hunch” that Rachel Leatherman possessed a controlled substance did not constitute suspicion for a stop or reasonable cause for an arrest

The trial court’s first conclusion of law was that “[t]he deputy did not conduct a stop of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant pulled off the roadway and stopped. The deputy then pulled in behind her and activated his emergency lights so as to investigate.” TR 222. This is incorrect as a matter of law and is unsupported by the evidence.

Deputy McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing that he “was going to” stop Leatherman “anyway” when she pulled to the shoulder. TR 165. He admitted, “I suppose she assumed I was going to stop her, so she went ahead and pulled over, anyway.” He admitted that Leatherman’s actions “were a safe assumption” that he was going to stop her. TR 166; emphasis added. McGuire conceded that it was possible Leatherman had activated her turn signal, but decided against moving into the left lane when she saw the cruiser come up in her rear view mirror. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:15:05. McGuire had already testified that he was driving faster than the Leatherman vehicle. That Leatherman did not move to the left lane and collide with the cruiser is evidence that she noticed him coming up on her side.

Yet, McGuire, the trial court and the panel found it suspicious that Leatherman speedily obeyed the demands of KRS 189.930, which mandates that emergency vehicles are to be given the right of way, by the operator of the motor vehicle “driv[ing] to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the edge or curb of the highway clear of any intersection. . .”

The panel absolutely ignored Garcia v. Commonwealth, in which a member of the panel had found that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop a driver who “quickly changed to the right lane” as a Kentucky State Police Trooper approached the vehicle. 185 S.W.3d 658, 660-661 (Ky. App. 2006). The panel found that “Garcia’s nervousness, lane change, failure to make eye contact, ‘death grip’ on the steering wheel, and out-of-state license plate. . . . describe a substantial number of drivers on our highways.” Further, the panel said, “[i]f we were to accept the Commonwealth’s argument, ordinary law abiding citizens could be subjected to a stop by police based upon routine driving habits.” Id., at 665.

Contrast the behavior in Garcia with that in the case at bar. According to the officers in each case, both Leatherman and Garcia appeared nervous and changed lanes and had out-of-state license plates. The difference is that Leatherman driving with a turn signal blinking was somehow seen as suspicious behavior, rather than the routine (for some drivers) driving habit that it is.

Exculpatory scientific tests trumped by “glassy eyes” and an improper HGN

As a result of the panel’s opinion, exculpatory blood test results are no longer good evidence. The panel used as part of its reasoning for affirming Rachel Leatherman’s convictions that she “failed the HGN test, which reveals intoxication by alcohol or some other drug”. Even assuming arguendo that the other indicators had been present (addressed infra), McGuire improperly administered the test.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration warned police officers to position DUI suspects so that they do not face blinking cruiser lights or oncoming traffic because the lights can create a false nystagmus (optokinetic nystagmus). The field video shows McGuire positioned Rachel Leatherman facing the blinking cruiser lights and oncoming traffic. Moreover, the panel ignored the fact that Metoprolol, which Leatherman told McGuire she was taking for hypertension, can cause nystagmus. The test was neither administered properly nor documented. For the panel to rely on this so-called “failed” test in order to affirm Leatherman’s conviction is the height of arbitrariness and incorrect legal analysis.

The panel noted that his “observation of [Rachel] Leatherman’s glassy eyes and odd behavior coupled with her admission that she was taking prescription medication” was sufficient to provide Deputy McGuire with probable cause to arrest her for DUI. Leatherman, supra, at *9.

The panel absolutely ignored McGuire’s admissions that Leatherman drove in compliance with traffic laws. It even cited McGuire’s testimony that Leatherman was neither driving erratically nor weaving! Id. Leatherman produced her license and registration quickly after he asked for them. Her eyes were not watery or bloodshot. Her pupils were not pinpoint or dilated. She did not have a runny nose as is common with some cocaine users. She did not have scabs or needle marks, also common with intravenous drug users. She was not coughing or short of breath; she was not sneezing or sweating. She did not complain of nausea or chest pains. Her face was not flushed. She was alert.

Moreover, McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing that the HGN result by itself could not provide probable cause. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:21:45. Neither does nervous behavior.

The panel also absolutely ignored United States Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit case law which establishes that nervous, evasive behavior is the standard to justify reasonable suspicion, not simple nervousness or restlessness. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, (2000); Joshua v. DeWitt, 341 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2003).

One need only look at several Supreme Court cases regarding drug smuggling at the United States-Mexico border to determine that evasive behavior is the key. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885 (1975) (“The driver’s behavior may be relevant, as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers can support a reasonable suspicion.”); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 6 (1984) (“[T]he three confederates … had spoken furtively to one another. One was twice overheard urging the others to ‘get out of here.’ Respondent’s strange movements in his attempt to evade the officers aroused further justifiable suspicion….”); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S.1, 5, 8-9, (1989) (noting that “[Respondent] appeared to be very nervous and was looking all around the waiting area,” but that “one taking an evasive path through an airport might be seeking to avoid a confrontation with an angry acquaintance or with a creditor”).

The ultimate irony for this case is that after the hour and one-half Deputy McGuire held Rachel Leatherman on the side of the road, he found nothing illegal. The panel stated as much when it said, “consent searches of her automobile and her person did not reveal any heroin or any other illegal substance.” Leatherman, supra, 2011 WL 181251, at *7.

Effects of Clonazepam/Klonopin

As the final rung of its finding that McGuire had probable cause to arrest Ms. Leatherman for DUI, the panel cited to “the product information for Klonopin. . . .[which] states that patients taking that medication “should be cautioned about operating hazardous machinery, including automobiles, until they are reasonably certain the Klonopin therapy does not affect them adversely.” Leatherman, supra, at *9.

Unfortunately, that information is also after-acquired and not something Deputy McGuire knew at the scene. The trial court made the same error when it noted her statement that “she was taking medication that would cause her to fail the test, constitutes probable cause to arrest for DUI.” TR 222.

Moreover, the panel and the trial court absolutely ignored KSP lab tech Ryan Johnson’s testimony that Klonopin itself could cause “positive” HGN signs. VR 4; 1/22/2008; 2:59:55. The panel (and the trial court) also absolutely ignored Johnson’s testimony that even if he had the equipment to test Rachel Leatherman’s blood for the presence of Klonopin, the simple presence of the drug was not an indicator that the person was under the influence such that she could be charged with, let alone convicted of, driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Id., 3:03:36.

Conclusion

The panel ignored the facts and law of this case in affirming Rachel Leatherman’s convictions for driving under the influence. Moreover, the trial court ignored the facts and the law, including the dictates of RCr 9.38, when it used information gained from trial testimony to concoct a third set of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court must grant discretionary review.

2. The panel erred when it found the trial court properly granted the government’s motion in limine which prohibited defense counsel from mentioning that Rachel Leatherman asked Deputy McGuire to retrieve her watch from the backseat.

The panel found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not admit Leatherman’s statements to Deputy McGuire from the back of his cruiser. The panel said, “the trial court indicated that it would permit Leatherman to testify to her statement regarding the watch had she opted to take the stand in her own defense.” Leatherman, supra, at *10. That finding is inconsistent with the trial court’s ruling that Leatherman’s statements were inadmissible, self-serving hearsay. VR 1; 1/22/2008; 8:56:24.

In light of the government’s announcement that it believed “801A(b)” prevented trial counsel from broaching the subject, this Court cannot seriously believe that had Leatherman testified, “I asked Deputy McGuire to look for my watch,” the government would not have been strenuously objecting on hearsay grounds. But why should Leatherman be forced to give up her right to remain silent to an admissible statement?

The panel next found, “Leatherman did not attempt to impeach Deputy McGuire’s prior statements regarding discovery of the watch and drugs through laying a proper foundation.” Leatherman, supra, at *10. The panel ignored trial testimony. In his cross-examination, defense counsel asked Deputy McGuire:

DC: How is it that you came to find the watch?

DM: Whenever she got out of the backseat, that’s when I found it.

DC: She actually asked you about the watch, didn’t she?

VR 2; 1/22/2008; 5:40:32. The government immediately objected.

It is hard to fathom what else counsel was doing besides beginning to lay a foundation so that he could cross-examine McGuire when he was prevented from doing so by the government’s objection and the trial court sustaining it. The panel focused on Leatherman’s alleged failure to impeach McGuire to the exclusion of the impeaching material to be discovered.

It absolutely ignored just how Deputy McGuire’s testimony changed in the months between the preliminary hearing, the suppression hearing and trial. At the preliminary hearing, McGuire’s testimony was that the watch and baggie were not in plain view. In fact, he testified that he saw the baggie only when he moved the seat. TPH 11.

By the time the suppression hearing came around, the baggie and Ms. Leatherman’s watch were in plain view next to her in the back seat. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:25:55. Interestingly, he also said Leatherman had told him before they went into the hospital that she had dropped her watch. Id., 14:28:15. At trial, McGuire testified that as he assisted Ms. Leatherman out of the cruiser at Lourdes Hospital, he saw a baggie with what appeared to be a rock of cocaine lying underneath her watch in the seatbelt crack of the back seat. VR 2; 1/22/2008; 4:06:20.

The panel could not then—this Court cannot now—reconcile McGuire’s conflicting accounts regarding whether he saw the baggie and watch in plain view or not in plain view. McGuire had been a member of the McCracken County Sheriff’s Department for four and one-half years. VR 1; 1/22/2008; 14:08:45. Presumably, he was familiar with the meaning of the phrase “plain view.” Yet, his story about plain view progressed over the months.

Finally, the panel opined that the outcome of the case would not have been changed because of the “strength of the rest of the testimony that was introduced, including the close proximity of the watch and the drugs as well as the search of the area prior to Leatherman’s placement in the cruiser.” Leatherman, supra, at *10. It is hard to fathom how testimony which changes in material ways from preliminary hearing to trial is “strong”.

The panel absolutely ignored Gretchen Dawes’s testimony about how she searched Rachel Leatherman’s person. Prior to Dawes’s arrival, McGuire testified, Rachel Leatherman emptied her front pockets. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:25:36.

Dawes searched the inside rear pockets of Leatherman’s jeans and made her open the front of her pants so she could search Leatherman’s crotch. She made Leatherman lift her shirt so she could search her breasts for concealed controlled substances. TR 26. Even McGuire conceded at the suppression hearing that Dawes’s search was “thorough.” VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:25:40.

Yet, the panel believed the impossibility that Rachel Leatherman held onto a baggie with rock cocaine through a search of her vehicle and her person. Assuming for sake of argument that Leatherman did so, where did she conceal the baggie? As was clearly seen on the dashboard camera (the recording is a part of the exhibits in the file housed with the Clerk of the Kentucky Court of Appeals), McGuire had her open her hands up together, at one time—she could not have held the baggie in one hand, then the other. Dawes opened her jeans zipper—Leatherman could not have concealed the baggie in her crotch. Dawes had her raise her blouse—Leatherman could not have concealed the baggie in her bra. The search also begs the question of how Leatherman retrieved the baggie–in handcuffs–without moving enough to make at least one of the officers suspicious.

Conclusion

The panel ignored the facts and law of this case. This Court must grant discretionary review.

CONCLUSION

The panel ignored clear precedent and the facts of this case in affirming Rachel Leatherman’s convictions. Moreover, the panel also ignored the fact that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law changed over three iterations, one coming after it had heard all the trial testimony. Just as Deputy McGuire used after-acquired information, so, too, did the trial court. This Court must grant discretionary review.

Respectfully submitted,

JULIA K. PEARSON

NOTICE

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for Discretionary Review will be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court on this 17th day of June 2011.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion for Discretionary Review has been mailed, postage paid, to Hon. Jack Conway, Attorney General, 1024 Capital Center Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 and Hon. Samuel Givens, Jr., Clerk of the Court of Appeals, 360 Democrat Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, this 17th day of June 2011.

Julia K. Pearson


Investigatory Stop Or Voluntary Citizen Initiated Contact With Police?

November 11, 2011

An interesting Fourth Amendment issue arises from time to time regarding whether a police officer initiates a contact with a person operating a motor vehicle by pulling it over, or the driver voluntarily initiates the contact by stopping the vehicle and signals for assistance by turning on the vehicle’s blinking hazard lights, as might be the case for example, with a health emergency, a flat tire, or running out of gas.

With few exceptions, the first situation is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, unless the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the motorist has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. A reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch because it must be supported by an articulable set of objective facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that the individual being observed had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. In the standard drunk driving case, for example, an officer would have a reasonable suspicion to believe the operator of a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol if the vehicle was weaving, crossing the center line, exceeding the speed limit, and speeding up and slowing down erratically. The courts apply a flexible totality of the circumstances test in determining whether the officer’s suspicion was reasonable in any given case. The courts will not consider information acquired after a stop because the officer did not know it prior to the stop and could not have relied on information he did not know.

The second situation is not subject to the Fourth Amendment because there is no seizure when a police-citizen contact is initiated voluntarily by the citizen, or the citizen appears to require assistance. This means that an officer does not have to have a reasonable suspicion to contact a citizen who initiates the contact, or otherwise appears to require assistance. This distinction certainly makes sense when one considers, for example, the plight of a motorist who may have suffered a heart attack, turned on the hazard lights, pulled over, and stopped the vehicle before lapsing into unconsciousness. It would not make any sense to require a police officer to have a reasonable suspicion to believe that the apparently unconscious person was committing a crime to justify stopping to check on the person.

Unfortunately, however, the distinction between an investigatory stop that requires a reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment and the voluntary citizen initated contact with a police officer that is not subject to the Fourth Amendment is not always easy to determine. As with the reasonable suspicion test, the courts consider the totality of the circumstances and ask whether a reasonable person in the same set of circumstances faced by the person in the case under review would have believed that he was free to terminate the contact at any time and drive away rather than remain and submit to the authority of the law enforcement officer until released.

This issue was raised by the prosecution in Crane-Station’s case. The trial judge agreed with the prosecution and ruled that the arresting officer, McCracken County Sheriff Deputy Eddie McGuire, did not require a reasonable suspicion to pull her over because she had voluntarily initiated a citizen-police contact to which the Fourth Amendment did not apply.

Consider the following evidence, apply the legal rules that I have set forth and explained for you, and see if you agree with the trial judge’s conclusion.

At the suppression hearing on November 27, 2006, Deputy McGuire testified that he was dispatched to investigate a 911 call. After he arrived, he checked the neighborhood for a few minutes looking for a dark blue Buick LeSabre with Washington plates that was described the caller. When he did not find it, he cleared the call and headed back toward town on U.S. Highway 60.

(Note: The content of this call has been discussed in a previous article (link). Briefly, the caller told the 911 dispatcher that the driver of the vehicle had mentioned “something about tar heroin and all that stuff” while talking to his neighbor in the neighbor’s yard and writing in her notebook. Since this information, even if true, describes what someone said to another person that may or may not have been witnessed by the caller and it does not describe a crime or an attempt to commit a crime, the call was insufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect that the person described by the caller had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. To conclude otherwise would be to hold that police officer may lawfully seize and investigate any person who mentions the name of a controlled substance to another person. Such a rule not only would dispense with the requirement that the suspected behavior be criminal in nature, it would violate a person’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.)

As McGuire approached the traffic-light controlled intersection at U.S. Highway 60 and Cairo Road, he suddenly realized that he was passing a vehicle that matched the description provided by the 911 caller. After admitting that he did not know how fast he was driving as he approached and drew alongside her vehicle (Suppression Transcript p. 13), he said,

As I was passing the vehicle she had her left blinker on as if she was going to turn out in the passing lane, but she never did.

And then as I was going to go ahead and go past her, I noticed that the license plate – it was a Washington license plate was the description that was also given at the time of the call. So when I noticed that, I slowed down and let her go back by me, and then when I pulled in behind her, she pulled over.

(Suppression Transcript p. 6)

The prosecutor asked him when he turned on his emergency lights and he said,

I just pulled in behind her, and she started to pull over. That’s when I lit her up.

(Suppression Transcript p. 6)

On cross-examination, defense counsel asked McGuire if she “was driving appropriately.” He said,

I was going – yes. She didn’t bring my attention as far as weaving or nothing like that. Speed wasn’t a factor.

(Suppression Transcript p. 13)

Defense counsel focused on the blinking left-turn signal with a few questions.

Q: Okay. And apparently, your testimony is that she had on her turn signal?

A: She had her left-turn signal on as if she was going to come into the left lane. That’s what brought my attention to that vehicle to begin with. And then as I was passing her, I noticed it had Washington tags.

Q: So I guess there’s at least a possibility she was going to move into the left lane and –

A: Right.

Q: — saw your vehicle and elected not to?

A: Correct. That’s possible.

(Suppression Transcript pp. 12-13)

Defense counsel asked him to describe when she activated her right-turn signal. He said,

A: She turned her other turn signal on when she was going into the emergency lane just to stop.

Q: When she was getting ready to pull over?

A: Yes.

(Suppression. Transcript p. 15)

When defense counsel asked him if he activated his lights “even before she came to a complete stop,” McGuire answered, “Correct.” (Suppression Transcript p. 14)

Q: So, technically, you did stop the vehicle?

A: I was going to, anyway, yes. When she started to pull over, I just went ahead and turned my lights on.

Q: When you fell in behind her, she pretty much –

A: She – yeah. I suppose she assumed I was going to stop her, so she went ahead and pulled over anyway.

Q: Safe assumption under those circumstances?

A: Right.

(Suppression Transcript 14-15)

Consider also that Deputy McGuire wrote in his Uniform Citation and Offense Report that he stopped her, which he confirmed in testimony under oath at the Preliminary Hearing and before the Grand Jury.

In addition, on October 17, 2006, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney (now a McCracken County District Court judge) Christopher B. Hollowell prepared and filed the Commonwealth’s Bill of Particulars declaring in pertinent part under penalty of perjury that Deputy McGuire “stopped” her vehicle.

(Note: this is also admissible non-hearsay as a declaration by a party opponent that arguably should be dispositive of the legal issue. See Part 1 of my four-part series on the hearsay rule.)

The critical question then is whether a reasonable person in Crane-Station’s position would have pulled over into the emergency lane and subsequently stopped her vehicle after a police officer, who had pulled alongside her, slowed down, fell in immediately behind her, and activated his emergency lights as she moved over into the emergency lane?

We do not believe the answer to this question is reasonably debatable, especially since the officer who pulled her over wrote in his report and consistently testified under oath at three different pretrial hearings that he “stopped” her. Finally, in the suppression hearing, he testified that he intended to stop her and he conceded that her reaction to his behavior by pulling over and stopping was reasonable under the circumstances.

He was the only witness who testified at the suppression hearing.

We believe that only outcome driven judicial mendacity by the trial judge and the Court of Appeals, aided and abetted by a strong dose of prosecutorial legerdemain in formulating an argument unsupported by the police officer, who was the only witness, could conclude on this set of undisputed facts that Crane-Station voluntarily initiated a citizen-police contact.

Author’s disclosure: Crane-Station is my wife. We were married and I was a law professor when this incident intruded into our lives.

Cross posted at Firedoglake/MyFDL and at the Smirking Chimp.


TSA Highway Searches In Tennessee Are Unconstitutional

October 26, 2011

The Homeland Security News Wire, which claims to be “a leading e-information service, delivering daily digital reports, in-depth analysis, news, and researched background on the day’s developments in homeland security, reports today,

Last week in an effort to improve security on U.S.highways, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)establishedcheckpoints at truck weight stations in Tennessee.

Working with the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security, TSA deployed Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams across the state to inspect vehicles. The teams included surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detention officers, and explosive detection canine teams.

“People generally associate the TSA with airport security, and after 9/11 that was our primary focus, but now we have moved on to other forms of transportation, such as highways, buses, and railways,” said Kevin McCarthy, the TSA federal security director for West Tennessee.

The federal statute upon which this program is based is 6 USC 1112.

According to Larry Godwin, the Deputy Commissioner of the Tennessee Depatment of Homeland Security (TDSHS),

Everything from Wal-Mart merchandise to illegal drugs and illegal immigrants are transported through this area. Current interdiction units are doing a good job, but further coordinated inspections will only strengthen their efforts. If we prepare for the worst, then we are ready for almost anything.

The Channel 5 report concludes:

The random inspections really aren’t any more thorough than normal, according to Tennessee Highway Patrol Colonel Tracy Trott who says paying attention to details can make a difference. Trott pointed out it was an Oklahoma state trooper who stopped Timothy McVeigh for not having a license plate after the Oklahoma City bombing in the early 1990s.
Tuesday’s statewide “VIPR” operation isn’t in response to any particular threat, according to officials.

Representative Ron Paul released a statement yesterday stating, in part:

“If you thought the ‘Transportation Security Administration’ would limit itself to conducting unconstitutional searches at airports, think again,” Paul said in a statement. “The agency intends to assert jurisdiction over our nation’s highways, waterways, and railroads as well.”
***
“Disarming the highways and filling them full of jack-booted thugs demanding to see our papers is no way to make them safer. Instead, it is a great way to expand government surveillance powers and tighten the noose around our liberties.”

In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), by a vote of 6-3, the United States Supreme Court held that the use of sobriety checkpoints in which police stop vehicles on the public highways to check for alcohol or drug impaired drivers does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court described the procedure as follows:

Under the guidelines, checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist’s driver’s license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer’s observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the majority concluded that,

In sum, that balance of the State’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program.

In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), in an opinion by Justice O’Connor, a 6-3 majority held that drug checkpoints set up by the City of Indianapolis violated the Fourth Amendment stating,

The primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint is in the end to advance “the general interest in crime control.” . . . We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary purpose of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.

Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint were the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route . . . The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction. While we do not limit the purposes that may justify a checkpoint program to any rigid set of categories, we decline to approve a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.

As Justice O’Connor noted in her majority opinion, the Fourth Amendment requires “individualized suspicion” to justify an investigatory stop. The test, which the Supreme Court established in Terry v. Ohio is whether the law enforcement officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The test is objective. That is, the suspicion or hunch must be based on an articulable set of facts that would warrant a reasonable person to suspect that a suspect had committed, was committing, or about to commit a crime.

The generalized searches that are being conducted by the TSA clearly are not based on a reasonable suspicion that anyone they stop is engaged in terrorist or any unlawful activity. I also do not see any evidence that the searches are being conducted “to thwart an imminent terrorist attack”, or to make our roads safer, which was the motive for the constitutional DUI checkpoint searches in Sitz. Therefore, I do not see any meaningful difference between the unconstitutional searches being conducted in Edmond and the searches now being conducted by the TSA.

Finally, after the Supreme Court decided Sitz, many state supreme courts relied on provisions in their state constitutions similar to the Fourth Amendment to hold that the DUI checkpoints approved in Sitz were unconstitutional. Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have done so or outlawed them, according to Wikipedia, and Alaska and Montana do not use them.

The TSA and its parent organization, the Department of Homeland Security, are out of control and need to be stopped. These searches are outrageous and unnecessary. They appear to be primarily motivated by a desire to control people by conditioning them to accept humiliating intrusions into their privacy and snitch on their fellow citizens.

This is not acceptable.

Cross posted at Firedoglake/MyFDL and the Smirking Chimp.


%d bloggers like this: