United States v. Diaz
854 F.3d 197, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6579, 2017 WL 1379188 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search is a valid search incident to arrest if the officer has probable cause to make an arrest and the formal arrest follows quickly after the search, regardless of the officer's subjective intent to only issue a citation at the time of the search. Probable cause can be based on an officer's objectively reasonable mistake of law regarding an ambiguous statute.
Facts:
- NYPD Officer Chris Aybar was on patrol in a Bronx apartment building as part of the 'Clean Halls' program.
- She observed Jose Diaz sitting on a third-floor stairwell landing, holding a plastic cup that smelled of alcohol and sitting next to a bottle of vodka.
- Believing Diaz was violating New York City's open-container law, Officer Aybar initially intended only to issue him a summons, not to make an arrest.
- Officer Aybar ordered Diaz to stand against the wall and produce his identification.
- Diaz stood and then fumbled with his hands in his jacket pockets and rearranged his waistband.
- Fearing for her safety due to Diaz's movements, Officer Aybar frisked him and felt a bulge in his jacket.
- She opened his jacket pocket, discovered a loaded handgun, and then placed him under arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Jose Diaz with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Diaz filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the search was a lawful search incident to an arrest.
- After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court found Diaz guilty.
- Diaz (appellant) appealed the judgment, challenging the denial of his suppression motion, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless search of a person violate the Fourth Amendment when the officer has probable cause to arrest for a minor offense but does not intend to make an arrest at the time of the search, and the arrest only occurs after the search reveals evidence of a more serious crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Sack, Circuit Judge
No. The warrantless search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was a valid search incident to a lawful arrest. First, Officer Aybar had probable cause to arrest Diaz for violating the open-container law. Her belief that the apartment building stairwell qualified as a 'public place' under the ambiguous law was an objectively reasonable mistake of law, which is sufficient for probable cause under Heien v. North Carolina. Second, the search was justified as a search incident to arrest. The officer's subjective intent to issue a summons is irrelevant as long as probable cause for an arrest existed. The court distinguished Knowles v. Iowa, where a search occurred after a citation was already issued and the traffic stop was complete. Here, the encounter was ongoing and the prospect of arrest still existed, so the search was permissible because a formal arrest followed 'quickly on the heels' of the search.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the objective standard for Fourth Amendment analysis, confirming that an officer's subjective intent is largely irrelevant when probable cause for an arrest exists. It clarifies and limits the Supreme Court's holding in Knowles v. Iowa, distinguishing between searches conducted after an encounter is concluded by a citation versus searches during an ongoing stop that culminates in an arrest. The ruling also solidifies the 'reasonable mistake of law' doctrine from Heien, granting officers latitude when enforcing ambiguous statutes, which strengthens law enforcement's position in situations where the law is not yet settled.
