USA v. Chirino, No. 06-1207 (2d Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
06-1207-cr USA v. Chirino 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2006 5 (Argued: December 7, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2007) 6 7 Docket No. 06-1207-cr 8 _________________________________________________________ 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 Appellee, 11 - v. - 12 WALTER CHIRINO, 13 14 Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________________________ 15 Before: KEARSE, McLAUGHLIN, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges. 16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 17 for the Eastern District of New York, Denis R. Hurley, Judge, 18 convicting defendant, a previously convicted felon on probation, of 19 possessing of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 20 Affirmed. 21 Judge McLaughlin concurs, in a separate opinion. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUSAN CORKERY, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, New York (Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Peter A. Norling, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, New York, on the brief), for Appellee. 29 30 NORMAN TRABULUS, Garden City, New York, for Defendant-Appellant. 1 2 KEARSE, Circuit Judge: Defendant Walter Chirino appeals from a judgment of 3 conviction entered in the United States District Court for the 4 Eastern District of New York, following his conditional plea of 5 guilty before Denis R. Hurley, Judge, to one count of possession of 6 a firearm by a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 7 § 922(g)(1). 8 imprisonment, to be followed by three years' supervised release. On 9 appeal, he contends that the district court should have granted his 10 motion to suppress (1) the firearm, discovered in his dresser drawer 11 during a warrantless search by probation officers and other law 12 enforcement officers, and (2) a statement made in the course of his 13 arrest following discovery of the gun, arguing principally that the 14 search was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and hence was 15 unlawful, and that his statement was a product of that search. 16 the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of conviction. 17 Chirino was sentenced principally to 37 months' I. For BACKGROUND 18 In 2001, Chirino was convicted in Suffolk County, New York 19 ("Suffolk County" or "County"), of third-degree robbery, a Class D 20 felony, see New York Penal Law § 160.05 (McKinney 1999), punishable 21 by up to seven years' imprisonment, see id. § 70.00(2)(d). 22 Suffolk County Court sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, to 23 be followed by a five-year period of probation. The 24 Federal law makes it unlawful for any person to possess a 25 firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce -2- 1 if that person has previously "been convicted in any court of[] a 2 crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," 18 3 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), regardless of the prison term actually imposed, 4 see, e.g., Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 5 113 (1983) (the word "punishable" in § 922(g) makes it "plainly 6 irrelevant 7 receives a prison term" (emphasis in original)). 8 prosecution was initiated after a warrantless search of Chirino's 9 bedroom in 2004, by a County probation officer and a County police . . . whether the individual in question actually The present 10 officer, turned up a firearm in Chirino's dresser drawer. 11 events leading to that discovery, as found by the district court, 12 whose factual findings are largely unchallenged on appeal, and as 13 described at a suppression hearing principally by Suffolk County 14 Probation Officer José Martorell, whose testimony the district court 15 credited, were as follows. 16 A. The The Conditions of Chirino's Probation 17 Among the conditions of probation imposed on Chirino by 18 the County Court in 2001 were the requirements that he notify his 19 probation officer prior to any change of address, see Suffolk County 20 Court Probation Order dated October 26, 2001 ("Probation Order"), 21 ¶ 3, and that he "permit the probation officer to visit his . . . 22 place of abode or elsewhere," id. ¶ 1. 23 "[r]efrain from violating any federal, state or local law." 24 ¶ 4. 25 26 Chirino was also required to Id. In addition, Chirino was expressly prohibited from, inter alia, using and/or possessing any illegal drugs. -3- See, e.g., id. 1 ¶ 11(e). 2 "[p]ermit search of [his] person" and "[p]ermit search of [his] 3 vehicle and place of abode where such place of abode is legally 4 under [his] control," with "such search[es] to be conducted by a 5 probation officer or a probation officer and his agent." 6 ¶¶ 11(a) and (b). 7 possessing any firearms, weapons or dangerous instruments," id. 8 ¶ 15; and he was required to "submit to the search of home, vehicle 9 and person by a probation officer to determine compliance with this 10 In connection with this prohibition, he was required to prohibition," Id. Chirino was also expressly "[p]rohibited from id. 11 In mid-2003, the Suffolk County Probation Office received 12 information that Chirino was a member of a street gang known as 13 MS-13. 14 probation was transferred from his original probation officers to 15 County 16 Martorell was in charge of the probation office's "gang unit," which 17 was concerned with probationers who were members of gangs. 18 As a result, responsibility for the supervision of his Probation In late Officer January Matt Porter, 2004, assisted Chirino by informed Martorell. Porter and 19 Martorell that he was moving to a new address, on Long Shore Avenue 20 in Bay Shore, New York ("Long Shore Avenue"). 21 officers planned to make their first visit to Chirino's new home on 22 February 6. 23 Suffolk County Police Sergeant John Oliva that caused them to 24 advance the date of that visit. 25 B. 26 The probation On February 4, however, they received information from The Search for the Missing Girl In late January, Oliva, who was a member of a police unit -4- 1 that worked jointly with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") 2 to deal with street gangs, received information from a confidential 3 informant that a girl who appeared to be 13 or 14 years of age was 4 hanging out with members of the MS-13 gang. 5 February 6 indicated that the girl, whom the authorities ultimately identified 7 (hereinafter called "Bonilla"), had been seen with members of MS-13 8 on each of those days. 9 approximately eight members of MS-13, several of whom the informant 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and possibly the In communications on 4th, the informant On February 1, she had been seen with 10 identified by name. 11 sexually abused by numerous members of MS-13, passed around from 12 member to member, and that she was perhaps being held against her 13 will. 14 The informant reported that Bonilla was being The informant had been a confidential informant for more 15 than a year. 16 on the basis of information he provided; Oliva had verified all of 17 the informant's information and found none of it to be erroneous. During that period, members of MS-13 had been arrested 18 After speaking with his informant on February 4, 2004, 19 Oliva telephoned Porter and asked whether there was an outstanding 20 PINS warrant (i.e., a warrant for the arrest of a "person in need of 21 supervision") for Bonilla, a 14-year-old girl who had been missing 22 for two weeks. 23 the information he had received from the informant and asked whether 24 any MS-13 members were probationers. 25 and one other County probationer were members of MS-13. 26 stated that one of the MS-13 members whom the confidential informant 27 had identified as being with Bonilla on February 1 was Chirino. When Porter responded affirmatively, Oliva relayed -5- Porter responded that Chirino Oliva 1 Porter contacted Martorell, whose 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. shift 2 by then had ended, and the probation officers decided not to wait 3 until February 6 to visit Chirino's new home but to make their first 4 visit immediately, on the evening of February 4. 5 Martorell met at 8 p.m. with Oliva, FBI agents, and other police 6 officers, all of whom would accompany the probation officers, to 7 plan the visit to Chirino's home, as well as a visit to the home of 8 the other probationer who was an MS-13 member. 9 10:45 p.m. on February 4, Martorell went to Chirino's Long Shore 10 Avenue address, accompanied by two FBI agents and a police officer. 11 (Oliva 12 probationer; finding that he was not at home but being allowed to 13 inspect his room and determine that Bonilla was not there, Oliva and 14 Porter shortly joined the law enforcement agents at Chirino's 15 residence.) 16 were to determine that it was indeed his home and to determine 17 whether Bonilla was with, or had been in the company of, Chirino. and Porter initially went to the Porter and At about 10:30 or home of the other The two purposes of the visit to Chirino's new address 18 At Chirino's residence, the officers knocked on the front 19 door, which was answered by the owner of the house and his son 20 Edward Galdez. The officers identified themselves, asked if Chirino 21 was present, and were informed that Chirino lived in the basement. 22 Galdez escorted the officers to the basement. Knocks on an unmarked 23 door, which led to an anteroom that the officers only later learned 24 was Chirino's living room (Chirino's prior residence had consisted 25 of a single rented bedroom), went unanswered. 26 door, which was not locked, and pointed to a second closed door, 27 telling the officers that it led to Chirino's bedroom. The officers -6- Galdez opened the 1 passed through the anteroom, looking only from side to side for 2 safety, and knocked on that second door. 3 door was opened by Chirino. 4 After a short delay, the The bed in the small (8' x 10') bedroom was so positioned 5 that Chirino could open the door without leaving the bed. 6 door opened, the officers found Chirino in bed between two young 7 girls who were under the covers, dressed in night clothes; Chirino 8 wore only boxer shorts. 9 he stated that one was his cousin and the other was her friend. 10 However, he did not know his "cousin's" last name, or where she 11 lived, or her parents' names. 12 identities of the girls, who turned out to be 13 and 14 years of age 13 (Chirino was 23). 14 warrants, but neither of them was Bonilla. When the When Chirino was asked who the girls were, Eventually, the officers learned the Both girls were the subjects of outstanding PINS 15 In the meantime, Martorell informed Chirino that the 16 officers were going to conduct both a search for Bonilla and a 17 probation search. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Martorell testified that [i]f . . . there is reason to believe [a probationer is] involved in gang activity, or there is a source or information from . . . police that this person is actually involved or is active in gang activity, that would give us a reason to make sure that he is complying with the conditions of probation, that he has no firearms, no drugs and no alcohol. 25 After the other agents had taken Chirino to the living room and the 26 girls to another part of the basement, Martorell began searching 27 Chirino's bedroom closet, on the chance that he might find Bonilla 28 or some of her clothing or some other indication that she had been 29 there. 30 dressers. When Oliva arrived, Martorell asked him to search the -7- 1 As Oliva felt around in one of the dresser drawers, he 2 found a loaded .380 pistol, whose serial number had been defaced. 3 He discreetly signaled his discovery of the gun to Martorell. Oliva 4 then went into the living room and placed handcuffs on Chirino; as 5 he did so, Chirino said, "[y]ou got me." 6 were any other guns present; Chirino responded, "[t]hat's the only 7 gun I have." 8 C. 9 Oliva asked whether there The Present Prosecution and Chirino's Suppression Motion Chirino was indicted on one count of being, as a 10 previously convicted felon, in possession of a firearm in violation 11 of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and on one count of possessing a firearm 12 with a defaced serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). 13 He moved to suppress both the gun found in the search and the 14 statements he made following that discovery. 15 search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment because he had 16 not voluntarily consented, that the search exceeded the scope 17 authorized by the Probation Order, and that his statements were the 18 product of the unlawful search. 19 He argued that the A suppression hearing was held, at which Martorell, Oliva, 20 and others testified. 21 October 7, 2005, the court denied the motion to suppress the gun and 22 the "[y]ou got me" statement. 23 ("Decision Tr."), at 27. 24 granted the motion to suppress Chirino's statement "[t]hat's the 25 only gun I have," ruling that that statement was a response to a 26 question posed after Chirino had been placed in custody and before In a decision announced from the bench on See Transcript, October 7, 2005 In a subsequent order, the district court -8- 1 he had been given Miranda warnings. 2 November 4, 2005, at 1-2, 5-6. 3 latter ruling. See Memorandum and Order dated The government has not appealed the 4 With respect to the rulings at issue on this appeal, 5 denying Chirino's motion to suppress the gun and the "[y]ou got me" 6 statement, the court held that the officers' entry into the living 7 room 8 reasonable for the officers to believe that that room was not part 9 of Chirino's apartment--given that they had not previously visited 10 Chirino at that location, that the door was opened by Galdez, and 11 that the door was unmarked and unlocked--and because the information 12 with respect to Bonilla bespoke exigent circumstances. See Decision 13 Tr. 8-9, 21-22. 14 because the door to that room was opened by Chirino. 15 Without making a finding as to whether or not Chirino had consented 16 to the ensuing search of his bedroom, the court found that the 17 search was lawful because it had been initiated and controlled by a 18 probation officer and was based on reasonable suspicion that Chirino 19 was violating the conditions of his probation. 20 14-15, 24. of Chirino's apartment was lawful, both because it was The entry to Chirino's bedroom was ruled lawful See id. at 23. See id. at 11, The court stated: 21 22 23 The two girls were under the covers in the bed. The two girls were dressed in nightclothes. The defendant was dressed in boxer shorts. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Now, a juxtapositioning of what the officers saw after the defendant opened the second door, with one of the reasons, that being one of the two reasons that the officers had gone to that location, certainly gave rise to reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion of what? Reasonable suspicion that the defendant was violating a condition of his probation. -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 One of the conditions of his probation is that he's not to be involved in any type of criminal activity. He is seen in the presence of two children, female children, in a bed, under circumstances that would certainly suggest that inappropriate conduct was occurring. Id. at 11. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 The court concluded that, given what the officers saw once the defendant opened the second door, it seems to me they definitely had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was violating conditions of his probation by being inappropriately involved with underaged girls, i.e., children apparently 14 years of age or younger. Id. at 24. 16 Further, the court reasoned that the reports, from an 17 informant of proven reliability, that Bonilla was being subjected to 18 sexual abuse by numerous members of MS-13 indicated 19 20 21 22 23 24 exigent circumstances. The officers have the following information at the time when the search was commenced. A girl has been missing for two weeks. She's 14 years of age. Information from a confidential informant indicates that she is being abused sexually by members of the MS 13 gang. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 The confidential informant also confirmed that information on the first, the second, and the third, and possibly the fourth, but certainly on the first three days of February. We also have information from that same informant that the defendant, along with seven others, was with her on the preceding Sunday. 32 33 34 Under those circumstances, it seems imperative that all reasonable efforts must be taken to locate the missing child. 35 Decision Tr. 24-25. 36 As to "whether the search should have ceased once it was 37 determined that neither of . . . the 14 year old girls who were in 38 bed with" Chirino was Bonilla, id. at 25, the court answered that 39 question in the negative. - 10 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It's true, of course, as defendant underscores, that Ms. Bonilla could not be hiding in a drawer. The gun was found in a drawer. But I think that's a simplistic approach to what was appropriate for the officers to do under the circumstances. Ms. Bonilla was missing. She was being subjected to criminal conduct. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 It may be that she was located in the bedroom, but the search readily indicated she was not. But that doesn't mean that it would not be reasonable to believe that a further search would uncover evidence that she had been there. A search of the bureau might have produced, for example, items of her apparel or other information that may have helped the officers to find her. Which is to say, a continuation of the search was reasonable under the attendant circumstances. 18 Id. at 25-26. 19 officers' conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 20 Accordingly, the district court concluded that the Following the court's rulings on the motion to suppress, 21 Chirino and the government entered into a plea agreement. 22 government agreed to the dismissal of the § 922(k) count of the 23 indictment; Chirino agreed, with the approval of the court, to enter 24 a conditional plea of guilty to the § 922(g)(1) count, reserving the 25 right to appeal so much of the court's order as had denied his 26 suppression motion. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 II. The DISCUSSION The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined "by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001) (quoting - 11 - 1 Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999)). 2 reasonableness of the search of a person who is on probation, we are 3 to follow the "general Fourth Amendment approach of 'examining the 4 totality of the circumstances,' Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39 5 (1996), 6 circumstance." 7 with the probation search condition In determining the being a salient Knights, 534 U.S. at 118. A defendant's "status as a probationer subject to a search 8 condition informs both sides of th[e] balance." 9 "Inherent in the very nature of probation," which is one point on a 10 continuum of possible punishments imposed on a person who has been 11 convicted of a crime, is that "probationers do not enjoy the 12 absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled." Id. (internal 13 quotation marks omitted). 14 diminution of the probationer's right to privacy. 15 Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 875 (1987). Id. at 119. Inherent in authorized supervision is a See, e.g., 16 On the other side of the scale, the government has a 17 heightened interest in conducting supervision when a person is 18 placed 19 probationer's 20 community; but another part of the government's concern is an 21 "interest in apprehending violators of the criminal law, thereby 22 protecting potential victims of criminal enterprise." 23 U.S. at 121. 24 the institution of probation' is that the probationer 'is more 25 likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law.'" 26 (quoting 27 recidivism). on probation. Part rehabilitation of and that his interest concerns reintegration into the the Knights, 534 The Knights Court noted that "'the very assumption of Griffin, 483 U.S. at 880, and citing Id. at 120 statistics on It also noted that "probationers have even more of an - 12 - 1 incentive to conceal their criminal activities and quickly dispose 2 of incriminating evidence than the ordinary criminal," knowing that 3 they are subject to supervision and to punishment for probationary 4 infractions "in proceedings in which the trial rights of a jury and 5 proof beyond a reasonable doubt, among other things, do not apply." 6 Knights, 534 U.S. at 120. 7 that 8 9 10 11 12 13 Accordingly, the Knights Court concluded [w]hen an officer has reasonable suspicion that a probationer subject to a search condition is engaged in criminal activity, there is enough likelihood that criminal conduct is occurring that an intrusion on the probationer's significantly diminished privacy interests is reasonable. 14 Id. 15 reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment is satisfied 16 without a warrant. at 121 (emphasis added). In such circumstances, the See id. 17 In the present case, the district court ruled that the 18 officers' entries into the anteroom and Chirino's bedroom were 19 lawful. 20 those rulings. 21 dispute the court's finding that "[n]o search was conducted of the 22 area behind the first door," Decision Tr. at 10, a finding that is 23 supported by the uncontradicted evidence that the officers did not 24 know 25 proceeding through that area to the door to Chirino's bedroom, the 26 officers merely looked from side to side for safety. 27 cursory inspection--one that involves merely looking at what is 28 already exposed to view, without disturbing it--is not a 'search' 29 for Fourth Amendment purposes." Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 328 See Decision Tr. at 21-22. this area Chirino does not challenge (See Chirino brief on appeal at 4.) was part of Chirino's - 13 - apartment Nor does he and that, in "[A] truly 1 (1987). 2 Rather, Chirino contends that his Fourth Amendment rights 3 were violated by the officers' search of his bedroom including, in 4 particular, the search of his dresser drawers, arguing that the 5 search was not supported by reasonable suspicion, was not authorized 6 by 7 circumstances. 8 clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, and assessing the 9 reasonableness of the search in light of the totality of the 10 circumstances known to the officers at the time the search was 11 begun, we disagree. 12 13 A. 14 the Probation Order, and was not justified by exigent Reviewing the district court's factual findings for The Conditions of Chirino's Probation and the Circumstances Known or Suspected by the Officers The conditions imposed on Chirino by the Probation Order 15 plainly diminished his right of privacy. 16 any federal, state, or local law, see Probation Order ¶ 4, Chirino 17 was required to permit probation officers to visit his "place of 18 abode or elsewhere," id. ¶ 1. 19 against his use or possession of illegal drugs, see id. ¶ 11(e), he 20 was required to permit probation officers to search his person and 21 his vehicle, as well as his home to the extent that it was legally 22 under his control, see id. ¶¶ 11(a) and (b). 23 to submit to the search of his person, vehicle, and home by 24 probation officers to determine whether he was complying with the 25 prohibition against his possession of firearms or other weapons. 26 See id. ¶ 15. Prohibited from violating In connection with the prohibition He was also required The district court correctly found that Chirino's - 14 - 1 "status as a probationer diminishe[d] his reasonable expectation of 2 privacy." Decision Tr. at 12. 3 The record also amply supports the district court's 4 finding that the search of Chirino's bedroom did not violate his 5 rights under the Fourth Amendment because it was, inter alia, based 6 on 7 activity. 8 Chirino was a member of the MS-13 street gang. 9 originating from a reliable informant that Bonilla, a 14-year-old reasonable suspicion that Chirino was engaged in criminal Before the officers initiated the search, they knew that They had information 10 girl 11 virtually every day for the past several days in the company of 12 members of MS-13; that she had been sexually abused by numerous 13 members of that gang; that a few days earlier, Bonilla had been seen 14 with Chirino; and that Bonilla was perhaps being held against her 15 will. 16 the officers had found Chirino, clad only in boxer shorts, in bed 17 with two young girls; the girls' ages appeared to be similar to 18 Bonilla's age, i.e., well below the age of consent; and the officers 19 learned that Chirino did not know the girls' surnames or their 20 addresses. 21 plainly gave them grounds for at least a reasonable suspicion that 22 Chirino was engaged in criminal activity. for whom a PINS warrant was outstanding, had been seen In addition, upon Chirino's opening the door to his bedroom, These facts known to the officers prior to their search 23 The fact that the officers learned while the search was 24 ongoing--and before the discovery of the gun--that neither of the 25 girls found with Chirino was Bonilla, and that Bonilla was not in 26 the bedroom closet, did not require the immediate cessation of the 27 search. Martorell had announced that he was conducting not only a - 15 - 1 search for Bonilla but also a probation search. 2 absence of Bonilla did not lessen the grounds for suspecting that 3 Chirino had violated the terms of his probation by engaging in 4 illegal activity with the two girls who were present. 5 absence of Bonilla diminish the authority of the probation officers 6 to search for weapons or illegal narcotics as provided by the 7 Probation Order. 8 member of the MS-13 gang, that he had been seen with Bonilla, and 9 that Bonilla was perhaps being held by MS-13 members against her 10 will justified the continuation of the search of Chirino's bedroom 11 for drugs or weapons that could be used to overcome a person's will. 12 Finally, the exigent circumstances that led the probation 13 officers to expedite their visit to Chirino's home did not abate 14 with the discovery that Bonilla was not then there. 15 the need to find Bonilla, who was reportedly being passed around 16 from gang member to gang member for the purpose of sexual abuse, 17 remained. 18 bed with two other underage girls, about the same age as Bonilla, 19 increased the likelihood that the informant's report that Chirino 20 had recently been with Bonilla herself was accurate, and that 21 enhanced the possibility that Chirino might have in his bedroom 22 information relating to Bonilla's whereabouts. The confirmed Nor did the And the officers' knowledge that Chirino was a The urgency of And the fact that Chirino had been found nearly naked in 23 In sum, the search of Chirino's bedroom, including the 24 furniture in that room, was justified by Chirino's diminished 25 expectation of privacy as a probationer and the officers' reasonable 26 suspicion that Chirino had engaged in unlawful activity with Bonilla 27 and the two young girls with whom he was found. - 16 - 1 B. The Alleged Noncompliance With State-Law Procedures 2 Chirino also contends that the district court should have 3 granted his motion to suppress because his "conditions of probation 4 did not authorize probation searches generally, or for clothing or 5 evidence 6 contraband: 7 dangerous instruments" (Chirino brief on appeal at 12), and under 8 New York law, a search beyond the conditions delineated in the 9 probation agreement requires prior court authorization, see N.Y. 10 in general, just searches specific classes of narcotics, narcotics implements, firearms, weapons, or Crim. Proc. Law § 410.50(3). 11 for While state-law Again, we disagree. rules and practices may inform our 12 evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, "the appropriate 13 inquiry 14 evidence seized by state police officers is whether the arrest, 15 search, or seizure violated the Fourth Amendment . . . . because the 16 exclusionary rule is only concerned with deterring Constitutional 17 violations." 18 1994); see id. at 1434 (the fact that state law "may . . . require 19 greater protection against searches and seizures than the fourteenth 20 amendment is of no avail to a defendant in federal court, under 21 prosecution 22 omitted)); see also Griffin, 483 U.S. at 880 n.8 (where a search 23 passes the Fourth Amendment reasonableness test, the fact that it 24 may 25 constitutional analysis); United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 26 662-63 (2d Cir. 1997) (even a state-law-based suppression order in 27 a state proceeding would not be binding on the district court in for have a federal court considering a motion to suppress United States v. Wright, 16 F.3d 1429, 1437 (6th Cir. for a violated federal state crime" (internal regulations - 17 - is quotation irrelevant to marks the 1 considering a motion to suppress in a federal-court proceeding), 2 cert. denied, 524 U.S. 905 (1998). 3 Thus, even assuming arguendo that the search of Chirino's 4 bedroom exceeded the scope authorized by the Probation Order and New 5 York law, that would not require the district court to find the 6 search unreasonable in light of all the circumstances discussed 7 above. 8 9 CONCLUSION We have considered all of Chirino's arguments on this 10 appeal and have found them to be without merit. 11 conviction is affirmed. - 18 - The judgment of 1 McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge, concurring: 2 I agree with my colleagues that reasonable suspicion supported 3 the search at issue here. 4 continuing belief that something less than reasonable suspicion may 5 support a search of the dwelling of a felon on probation. 6 I write separately only to note my The Supreme Court has remained expressly agnostic on this 7 question. 8 (2001). Our court, too, has noted that probationary searches may be 9 permissible if based upon reasonable suspicion, or potentially a See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 120 n.6 10 lesser standard. 11 Cir. 2004). 12 We recently United States v. Lifshitz, 369 F.3d 173, 181 (2d refused, however, to interpret Knights as 13 permitting suspicionless searches in the absence of a special need 14 beyond law enforcement, or a similar exception. 15 430 F.3d 652, 666 (2d Cir. 2005). 16 prudent 17 Amendment jurisprudence. 18 That course time until has the Nicholas v. Goord, We promised to follow this more Supreme Court clarified its Fourth Id. come. Last year s decision in Samson v. 19 California, 126 S. Ct. 2193 (2006), has fatally undermined the 20 prudent reading of Knights. 21 balancing 22 admonished that it has never held that [ special needs scenarios] 23 are 24 individualized suspicion could be reasonable under the Fourth 25 Amendment. 26 27 the test only for In approving the use of a general suspicionless limited parolee circumstances in searches, which the searches Court absent Id. at 2201 n.4. It is not a great leap from the conditioned parole of Sampson to a conditioned probation though it may be an important one. - 19 - Cf. 1 id. at 2198 (noting that parolees have fewer expectations of 2 privacy than probationers ). 3 the particular release conditions imposed upon a defendant. Compare 4 id. at 2199, with Knights, 534 U.S. at 114. Distinctions could also be drawn upon 5 Inevitably, however, a case will arise in which a suspicionless 6 search of a probationer occurs absent a special need or similar 7 exception. 8 present an open question of constitutional law in this Circuit after 9 Samson. I believe that the propriety of that search would - 20 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
