United States v. Jimmy Barrios-Moriera
1989 WL 30471, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4713, 872 F.2d 12 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the plain view doctrine, an officer's specialized training and experience, combined with the totality of the circumstances, can establish probable cause to believe that a wrapped package contains contraband, justifying its warrantless seizure.
Facts:
- DEA Agent Dolinsky and other officers were surveilling a black Audi automobile in connection with a drug-related homicide.
- Jimmy Barrios-Moriera drove his car past the Audi, slowed down, and appeared to look at it for several seconds.
- The agents followed Barrios-Moriera for five blocks until he parked, at which point he retrieved a large shopping bag from his trunk and entered an apartment building.
- Agent Dolinsky followed Barrios-Moriera into the common hallway of the building and identified himself as a police officer.
- Barrios-Moriera continued up the stairs to his apartment door and placed the open shopping bag on the floor beside him while fumbling for his keys.
- Agent Dolinsky looked into the open bag and observed a rectangular object, approximately eight by four by four inches, wrapped in duct tape.
Procedural Posture:
- Jimmy Barrios-Moriera was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Barrios-Moriera filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, alleging it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court (a trial court) held a suppression hearing and denied the motion.
- Following a trial, Barrios-Moriera was convicted of the charge.
- Barrios-Moriera, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
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 law enforcement officer have probable cause to seize a wrapped package under the plain view doctrine when the officer's training and experience, combined with the context of the situation, lead them to believe the package contains contraband?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, Circuit Judge
Yes. A law enforcement officer has probable cause to seize a wrapped package under the plain view doctrine when their experience and the surrounding circumstances indicate it contains contraband. The seizure was justified because all three prongs of the plain view test were met: (1) Agent Dolinsky's initial intrusion into the common hallway was lawful, as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such an area; (2) the discovery of the package was inadvertent, as Dolinsky merely glanced into the open shopping bag Barrios had placed on the floor; and (3) there was probable cause to believe the package was contraband. The court found that Dolinsky's extensive experience as a DEA agent, which taught him that kilograms of cocaine are typically packaged in this manner, combined with Barrios-Moriera's suspicious behavior (interest in the surveilled car and ignoring the officer's request to talk), made it 'immediately apparent' that the duct-taped package was evidence of a crime, satisfying the standard set in Texas v. Brown.
Dissenting - Pierce, Circuit Judge
No. An officer's experience and a suspect's ambiguous actions are not sufficient to create probable cause to seize an otherwise innocuous wrapped package. The majority's holding subjects citizens in high-crime areas to seizures for common activities like pausing near a car or carrying a duct-taped package. Unlike the precedent in Texas v. Brown, where the officer saw other clear evidence of drug paraphernalia like vials and white powder, here the agent only saw a wrapped package. The additional facts of Barrios-Moriera pausing by a car and continuing to his apartment are not enough to elevate mere suspicion to the level of probable cause required for a seizure.
Analysis:
This decision strengthens the role of an officer's specialized training and experience in the probable cause analysis under the plain view doctrine. By allowing the 'immediately apparent' nature of an item to be determined through the lens of a trained officer, the court gives law enforcement more leeway to seize objects that might appear innocuous to a layperson. The ruling affirms that the totality of the circumstances, including a suspect's behavior leading up to the seizure, can be combined with an object's appearance to justify a warrantless seizure. This precedent may lower the threshold for what constitutes probable cause in similar cases involving ambiguous packaging, potentially expanding police authority in street-level encounters.
