United States v. Thurman Reed, Jr.
15 F.3d 928, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 909, 94 Daily Journal DAR 1555 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search conducted by a private individual constitutes government action subject to the Fourth Amendment when government agents know of and acquiesce in the intrusive conduct, and the private party's purpose in conducting the search is to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further a legitimate, independent end.
Facts:
- Lewis S. Watson, assistant general manager of the Best Western Barratt Inn, suspected guest Thurman Reed, Jr. was engaged in drug activities in his room.
- Watson's suspicions were based on Reed paying in cash daily, refusing maid service, receiving an unusual number of visitors and calls, and an anonymous tip that Reed was selling narcotics.
- Watson called the Anchorage Police and requested officers be present to protect him while he checked the room.
- Accompanied by two officers, Watson used a master key to enter Reed's unoccupied room.
- An officer briefly entered the room to ensure Watson's safety, saw drug paraphernalia in plain view, and then rejoined his partner in the doorway.
- After confirming the room was clean and undamaged, Watson proceeded to search through Reed's dresser drawers and opened his latched briefcase.
- While Watson searched, the two police officers stood guard in the doorway, listened as Watson described his findings, and made no attempt to stop him.
- Reed arrived shortly after the search and refused to consent to a police search of his room.
Procedural Posture:
- Thurman Reed, Jr. was charged with various drug and firearm offenses in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
- Before trial, Reed moved to suppress the evidence seized from his hotel rooms, arguing the initial search was unlawful.
- After an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate judge, the district court denied the motions to suppress, finding the initial search was a private one not subject to the Fourth Amendment.
- Reed entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motions.
- Reed, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress.
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 search by a private citizen constitute government action for Fourth Amendment purposes when police officers are present, know of and acquiesce in the search, and the citizen's primary intent is to assist law enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, Circuit Judge
Yes. A search by a private individual becomes government action when police know of and acquiesce in the conduct, and the individual's intent is to assist law enforcement. The court applied a two-part test to determine if a private individual acts as a government agent: (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 further his own ends. The first prong was met because Officers Rose and Sponholz were present during the search, knew what Watson was doing, and did nothing to discourage him. The second prong was also met because Watson's motivation was to help police gather proof of drug dealing, not to protect hotel property. His search continued long after he had ascertained the room was undamaged, and a general interest in crime prevention is not a 'legitimate independent motivation' that would render the search private. The officers' presence was not merely passive; they acted as 'lookouts,' enabling Watson to conduct the search, which constituted significant participation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'government action' doctrine in the context of searches by private citizens conducted with police awareness. It establishes that police cannot circumvent the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement by passively observing or 'standing guard' while a private individual conducts a search for their benefit. The case emphasizes that the private actor's subjective intent is a critical factor, and a general desire to prevent crime is not a sufficient independent motive to negate government action. This precedent makes it more difficult for prosecutors to use evidence obtained when police indirectly encourage or facilitate a private search intended to uncover criminal evidence.
