United States v. Robert v. Snowadzki
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 26341, 723 F.2d 1427, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 624 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private person's search and seizure of evidence does not implicate the Fourth Amendment unless the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and the private party intended to assist law enforcement rather than simply acting for their own purposes.
Facts:
- Daniel Snowadzki worked as a branch supervisor for Cooper Aeromotive and also privately engaged in the resale of used aircraft engines.
- Snowadzki maintained a log of these private transactions but did not report the income from these sales to the IRS.
- On April 12, 1979, Keith Pugh, a co-worker of Snowadzki, called the IRS to report that Snowadzki had significant unreported income.
- During the call, Pugh asked an IRS agent if copies of Snowadzki’s records would be helpful, and the agent responded that they would.
- Pugh also inquired about a reward and was informed that one might be available.
- The following day, Pugh, acting without authority, took the log books from Snowadzki’s private desk, made copies of them, and delivered the copies to the IRS agent.
Procedural Posture:
- Snowadzki was tried before a jury in a federal trial court.
- The jury convicted Snowadzki on two counts of filing false tax returns.
- Snowadzki, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 private citizen act as a government agent for Fourth Amendment purposes when, without government knowledge or encouragement of the illicit method, they illegally seize documents and provide them to law enforcement after being told the documents would be helpful and that a reward might be available?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, J.
No. A private person does not act as a government agent unless the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct. To determine if a private individual acts as a government agent, the court considers two factors: (1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct, and (2) whether the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further their own ends. Here, the defendant, Snowadzki, failed to show that the IRS knew of or encouraged Pugh's seizure of the records. The trial court found the IRS agent 'had nothing to do with where the records were going to be obtained, [or] how they would be obtained.' The agent simply stated the records would be helpful in evaluating the claim. Although Pugh may have been motivated by a potential reward, there was no evidence that the seizure was prompted or encouraged by the IRS. Therefore, Pugh did not act as a government agent, and the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the state action doctrine, clarifying the threshold for when a private individual's conduct is attributable to the government for Fourth Amendment purposes. The decision establishes that mere government knowledge that an individual may provide information is insufficient; there must be active encouragement or direction regarding the illicit act of seizure itself. This provides law enforcement with a degree of insulation when receiving evidence from informants who act on their own initiative, even if illegally. The ruling distinguishes between the government merely expressing interest in evidence and actively participating in its unlawful acquisition, a crucial line for future cases involving citizen informants.
