United States v. Joseph N. Basinski
2000 WL 1246554, 226 F.3d 829, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22481 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a locked container entrusted to a third party, and an instruction to that third party to destroy the container constitutes an assertion of privacy, not an abandonment of the property or a grant of authority to consent to a search.
Facts:
- Joseph Basinski, under investigation by the FBI for jewel thefts, entrusted a locked briefcase containing incriminating documents to his friend of over thirty years, William Friedman.
- Basinski instructed Friedman to hide the briefcase at his summer home in Wisconsin.
- Basinski never gave Friedman the combination to the lock on the briefcase nor permission to open it.
- Fearing the FBI would find the briefcase, Basinski later instructed Friedman to burn it.
- Friedman falsely told Basinski he had destroyed the briefcase but instead kept it hidden in a barn.
- Friedman subsequently decided to cooperate with the FBI and led agents to the barn to retrieve the briefcase.
- After Friedman turned over the briefcase, FBI agents pried it open with a screwdriver without first obtaining a warrant.
- After learning the FBI had the briefcase, Basinski allegedly attacked Friedman.
Procedural Posture:
- Based on the alleged attack on Friedman, a federal grand jury indicted Basinski for retaliating against a witness and obstruction of justice.
- In the United States District Court, Basinski filed a motion to suppress evidence from the briefcase, arguing the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The government opposed the motion, arguing the search was justified by Friedman's consent and Basinski's abandonment of the briefcase.
- The district court granted Basinski's motion to suppress the evidence.
- The government (appellant) appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with Basinski as the appellee.
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 the warrantless search of a locked briefcase violate the Fourth Amendment when the owner entrusted it to a third party with instructions to destroy it, and that third party instead turns it over to government agents who pry it open?
Opinions:
Majority - Manion, Circuit Judge
No, the warrantless search of the locked briefcase violated the Fourth Amendment. A warrantless search is unreasonable unless an exception applies, and neither third-party consent nor abandonment justified the search here. Friedman lacked apparent authority to consent to the search because the agents knew the briefcase belonged to Basinski, it was locked, and Friedman never had the combination or permission to open it. Mere possession of a locked container does not grant a third party authority over its contents. Furthermore, Basinski did not abandon the briefcase by ordering its destruction; rather, this instruction was an ultimate assertion of his desire to keep the contents private and permanently exclude others from viewing them. This action is the antithesis of relinquishing one's privacy interests.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the boundaries of the third-party consent and abandonment exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, particularly for locked containers. The court establishes that an instruction to destroy property is an affirmative act to maintain privacy, not a relinquishment of it. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for the government to argue abandonment when an individual takes specific, albeit destructive, measures to protect the secrecy of their effects. It underscores the high expectation of privacy associated with locked personal containers, even when they are outside the owner's immediate possession.
