United States v. Rudolph Keszthelyi
2002 F. App'x 0362P, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21631, 308 F.3d 557 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a search warrant generally authorizes only one complete search, and a subsequent entry requires a new warrant unless it is a reasonable continuation of an unfinished original search, illegally obtained evidence may still be admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine if it would have been found through a later, independent, and lawful search supported by untainted probable cause. For sentencing, drug quantity can be estimated from unexplained financial transactions and a firearm enhancement is applicable if weapons are possessed in connection with drug offenses.
Facts:
- Rudolph Keszthelyi, who had overstayed his work visa and was in the U.S. illegally, purchased a company, E & R Products, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 1994, but there was no record of it operating after 1995.
- In December 1998, the Chattanooga Police Department, DEA, and ATF initiated an undercover investigation targeting Keszthelyi as a suspected cocaine dealer in Chattanooga nightclubs.
- Undercover ATF Special Agent Jeff Harwood made a number of controlled cocaine purchases from Keszthelyi, and a confidential informant (CI-4) made six controlled purchases from Keszthelyi between August and October 1999, three of which occurred at Keszthelyi's residence.
- An extensive financial investigation revealed Keszthelyi made cash deposits totaling $240,034 into multiple bank accounts over five years and made expensive purchases despite having no appreciable legitimate income.
- On October 8, 1999, law enforcement agents arrested Keszthelyi in his vehicle as he drove away from his home, finding four grams of cocaine hidden inside his garage door opener.
- Later that day (Oct 8), agents searched Keszthelyi's home pursuant to a search warrant, finding a loaded semiautomatic pistol, a loaded pistol-gripped shotgun, approximately $1000 cash, a digital scale, and electronic surveillance equipment, but no cocaine; the agents concluded their search and left around 5:00 p.m.
- On October 9, Agent Isom, believing evidence had not been located, returned to Keszthelyi’s residence and conducted a second search without obtaining a new search warrant, during which he discovered approximately one ounce of cocaine hidden behind a movable oven.
- After Keszthelyi's arrest, law enforcement agents interviewed additional witnesses (W-1, W-2, and W-3), who stated that they had purchased cocaine from Keszthelyi and that he had buried money on his property.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 27, 1999, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Tennessee returned a sixteen-count indictment against Rudolph Keszthelyi.
- Three superseding indictments followed, with the eighty-seven count Third Superseding Indictment filed on March 28, 2000.
- On July 5, 2000, Keszthelyi entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of knowingly engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property and one count of distributing cocaine hydrochloride, while reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
- Keszthelyi filed a motion in the district court to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the three searches of his home, arguing the initial warrant was insufficient, the second search was impermissible, and the third warrant lacked new probable cause.
- A suppression hearing was held on March 20, 2000, where Agent Harwood and Agent Isom testified.
- The district court denied Keszthelyi’s motion to suppress, concluding that the October 8 warrant was supported by probable cause, the October 9 search was a valid continuation (or inevitable discovery applied), and the October 11 warrant was valid.
- A sentencing hearing was held on November 6, 2000, where the district court adopted the government’s drug quantity extrapolation theory and applied sentencing enhancements for possession of firearms and obstruction of justice.
- The district court sentenced Keszthelyi to 120 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
- Keszthelyi filed a timely notice of appeal to the Sixth 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:
1. Does an affidavit for a search warrant omit material facts in violation of the Fourth Amendment if it does not disclose alleged misconduct by an undercover agent, when sufficient untainted information exists to establish probable cause? 2. Can law enforcement agents conduct a second, distinct search of a residence without a new warrant as a "reasonable continuation" of an earlier, completed search? 3. Should evidence seized during an illegal second search be suppressed when the government demonstrates that it inevitably would have been discovered during a later lawful search supported by an independent, untainted warrant? 4. Did the district court clearly err in determining drug quantity for sentencing by extrapolating from unexplained bank deposits over several years, and in applying a firearm enhancement based on weapons found in the defendant's residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge
1. No, the affidavit was not insufficient to establish probable cause even assuming material omissions regarding Agent Harwood’s alleged misconduct, because the remaining, untainted portions of the affidavit provided ample probable cause. The court found that Keszthelyi did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that Agent Isom intentionally or recklessly omitted facts about Harwood’s alleged misconduct. Even if such omissions were proven, the information from CI-4 (six controlled cocaine purchases, three at Keszthelyi's home, electronically monitored, with the last purchase occurring the day before the warrant) was sufficient to establish probable cause. Harwood played no role in CI-4's development. Additional support came from other informants and the financial investigation. 2. No, the second entry into and search of Keszthelyi’s home on October 9, 1999, was not a reasonable continuation of the October 8 search and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. The court held that once a search warrant is fully executed, its authority terminates. The October 8 search was thorough and complete, with agents leaving the property believing all available evidence had been located, and there were no unexpected obstacles or incomplete aspects, unlike prior cases permitting "reasonable continuation." Agent Isom's mere "feeling" that evidence remained was an insufficient basis, and the government failed to show any impairment to the first search or a reasonable, objective basis that undiscovered evidence remained. The second search was a complete, thorough re-search by multiple agents, not a limited return for a specific, inadvertently missed item. 3. Yes, the evidence seized during the illegal October 9 search should not be suppressed because it inevitably would have been discovered during the lawful October 11 search, which was based on an independent and untainted warrant. The inevitable discovery exception applies when the government shows by a preponderance of the evidence that evidence would have been discovered by lawful means. The October 11 search was conducted pursuant to a new, valid warrant, supported by new probable cause, largely from the statements of W-1, W-2, and W-3, who indicated Keszthelyi buried cash. The affidavit for the October 11 warrant, even with the illegally obtained information from October 9 removed, contained sufficient untainted probable cause. Agent Isom, who found the cocaine on October 9, participated in the October 11 search, making it highly probable he would have found it then. The October 11 search was independent and would have occurred regardless of the October 9 illegal entry. 4. No, the district court did not clearly err in its drug quantity determination or in applying the firearm enhancement for sentencing. The court found no clear error in extrapolating drug quantity from unexplained cash deposits, as the government provided a thorough financial analysis showing Keszthelyi's lack of legitimate income, testimony from customers about regular cocaine sales over years, and a consistent price of $100 per gram, while rebutting Keszthelyi's claims of receiving money from South Africa. The district court also erred on the side of caution by only using cash deposits and specifically identified drug payments. The firearm enhancement was proper because two loaded firearms were found in Keszthelyi's bedroom (one with seized cash), drugs were found in the residence, and he sold cocaine there. The government met its burden of showing possession, and Keszthelyi failed to show it was "clearly improbable" the weapons were connected to the drug offense, given the type of weapons and the context of drug sales from the home.
Concurring - Boggs, Circuit Judge
Concurs with the outcome but would have abstained from deciding the Fourth Amendment validity of the October 9, 1999 search (the "reasonable continuation" question) because the inevitable discovery rule provided a wholly sufficient, non-constitutional ground for admitting the evidence. Boggs, J., views the "reasonable continuation" question as close and difficult, noting that Keszthelyi's incarceration during the searches minimized any additional privacy violation from a second entry. He points out a contradiction in the majority's reasoning, stating that "little objective basis existed for believing that evidence escaped the first search" while also acknowledging that the amount of cash found was "less than expected" and Agent Isom correctly believed cocaine should have been found. He expresses concern that the majority's strict holding might compel police officers to prolong initial searches unnecessarily to avoid issues with warrant completion, and advocates for avoiding unnecessary constitutional questions.
Analysis:
This case refines the "reasonable continuation" doctrine for search warrants, clarifying that a search is generally considered complete once agents believe all evidence has been located and leave the premises, thereby typically requiring a new warrant for re-entry unless compelling, objective circumstances existed to suspend the initial search. Crucially, it reinforces the broad applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine, demonstrating that even unconstitutional searches will not lead to suppression if the evidence would have been found through an independent, untainted lawful process. For sentencing, the ruling affirms that drug quantity can be reliably estimated from unexplained financial transactions, provided there is a solid evidentiary basis for both the amount attributable to drugs and the conversion ratio, further streamlining calculations in cases lacking precise drug seizures.
