Bail Doubt

United States v. Briggs, No. 12-2988-cr (2d Cir. October 5, 2012) (Calabresi, Carney, CJJ)

Antonio Briggs, charged in a large, multi-defendant drug conspiracy, was ordered detained in September of 2010, and remains in jail today. In this appeal, he claimed that this lengthy pretrial detention deprived him of due process. 

The circuit, although clearly concerned with the length of the delay, held that there was as yet no due process violation. However, the court directed that the district court either commence his trial, or set reasonable bail for him, on or before February 1, 2013.

The circuit noted that the reasons cited by the district court for detaining Briggs in the first instance were sound: it was a presumption case, and both Briggs’ sentencing exposure and the strength of the government’s evidence supported the initial detention order. And here, much of the two-plus-year-delay, although not necessarily Briggs’ fault, resulted from “repeated motions,” many of which Briggs joined, and abundant discovery. 

There is no “bright-line limit on the length of pretrial detention.” Due process requires a balancing among several factors: the length of the detention,  the complexity of the case, and the degree to which the government is responsible for the delay.  Here, the district court weighed these factors correctly and concluded that the “totality of the circumstances” did not support a finding that Briggs’ due process rights had been violated.

The circuit agreed, but “emphasize[d] that we are deeply troubled by the length of Briggs’ detention.” The appellate court’s “repeated statements” in other cases that the length of the detention alone “is not dispositive does not authorize "detnetions of any length simply because the other relevant factors weigh against the defendant.” Even though there is no “bright-line limit,” there is indeed a limit, and here Briggs’ case is “approaching the limits of what due process can tolerate.” Thus, as noted above, the court ordered the district court to either start the trial or set bail conditions by February 1, 2013.

Summers-Time Blues

United States v. Bailey, No. 07-3819-cr (2d Cir. July 6, 2011) (Cabranes, Pooler, Raggi, CJJ)

In Michigan v Summers, 452 U.S. 602 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permitted police officers to detain the occupant of a premises during the execution of a search warrant, without need for individualized suspicion of the person detained. Here, the circuit, joining an issue in which the courts are divided, held that Summers also permits detaining the occupants after they have left the premises.

Background

In July of 2005, Suffolk County detectives obtained a search warrant for a basement apartment in Wyandanch, based on an informant’s tip that there was a gun there. When they arrived at the location to execute the warrant, they saw Bailey and an associate exiting the apartment. They drove off and the officers followed; about a mile from the apartment, the officers stopped Bailey’s car.

The officers patted Bailey down and, although he produced a driver’s license with a different address, he said that he was coming from “his” house at the target address. His friend also told the police that Bailey lived there. The officers took Bailey into custody and told him that the detention was incident to the search of the target location. Bailey answered that he did not live there and would not cooperate with the investigation.

Back at the original location, a gun and drugs were found in the apartment. Bailey was arrested and his keys were seized incident to the arrest. One of them opened the door of the apartment.

In the district court, Bailey moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his detention - his statements and the physical evidence, including his keys. The district court denied the motion, citing Summers.

The Circuit’s Reasoning

On Bailey’s appeal, the circuit affirmed. Like the district court, it relied on Summers, which had concluded that the intrusion associated with being detained during a lawful search was minimal, while the justifications for it were substantial: law enforcement’s interests in preventing a suspect from fleeing; minimizing the risk of harm to the officers; and completing the search in a “orderly” manner.

The circuit had little difficulty concluding that the authority to detain an occupant “at” the premises during the search also covered detaining an occupant who “leaves” the premises “during or immediately before the execution of a search warrant.” The court noted that three circuits had extended Summers to these facts, while two had not, and decided to join with the majority, citing the “guiding principle ... of reasonableness.”

The circuit concluded that, like a detention at the premises, the intrusion of an off-premises detention is “de minimis” and the law enforcement interests substantial. Summers does not draw a “bright line” at “the residence’s curb.” Rather, the interests identified in Summers also permit detention of an occupant “nearby, but outside of, the premises.”

The court noted that this rule would prevent officers from having to make the “Hobson’s choice” of either immediately detaining an occupant who is leaving - thus risking officer safety and the destruction of evidence - or letting him leave the scene - thus risking the inability to arrest him if incriminating evidence is found.

On these grounds, then, Bailey’s detention was lawful. Detaining him out of view of the house out of concern for the officers’ safety and to prevent alerting other possible occupants was, here, “reasonable and prudent.” Moreover, the detention was not “unreasonably prolonged.” By the time Bailey was returned to the location the search was underway, and he was placed under arrest within five minutes of the execution of the warrant.

The court ended with a “note of caution.” Summers is not “a license for law enforcement to detain ‘occupants’ of premises subject to a search warrant anywhere they [may] be found incident to that search.” Rather, the rule announced here applies only when the occupant “is seen leaving those premises and the detention is effected as soon as reasonably practicable.” The court also announced its expectation that these geographic and temporal limitations “will be policed vigilantly by the courts.”