You Have the Right to Remain Silent—But Only if You’re Told You Do?

BACKGROUND

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that interrogation of an individual who is in government custody is presumed to be compulsive. Reciting the warnings that the Court spelled out in Miranda, including the “right to remain silent,” provides a safeguard against violating a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination in the coercive setting of government custody. Implicit within Miranda warnings is the assurance that a defendant’s silence “will carry no penalty.” Wainwright v. Greenfield. Consequently, prosecution cannot use a criminal defendant’s silence after Miranda warnings have been given in its case-in-chief to prove the defendant’s guilt. 

Surprisingly, the question remains as to whether a defendant’s silence in response to government interrogation post-arrest but pre-Miranda warnings can be used against the defendant at trial as substantive evidence of guilt. 

THE ISSUE

Can the prosecution use a criminal defendant’s silence after the defendant is in custody but before Miranda warnings are given as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief? 

THE SPLIT

In the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s non-response to a question by law enforcement while not in custody is admissible and can be used against the defendant as evidence of guilt. But the Court did not explicitly state whether a defendant’s pre-Miranda silence in response to interrogation is admissible if the defendant is in custody. While the Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits prohibit using post-arrest, pre-Miranda warning silence as substantive evidence of guilt, the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits allow the prosecution to use a defendant’s silence at any timeprior to the issuance of Miranda warnings.

On one side of the split, the Ninth Circuit has held that prosecution may only use a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony, but not for its case-in-chief. In United States v. Hernandez, the court noted that a defendant’s right to remain silent is triggered by any custodial interrogation, not just when the defendant has been read Miranda rights. The D.C. Circuit went one step further in U.S. v. Moore, stating that “custody not interrogation is the triggering mechanism for the right to pretrial silence under Miranda.” The D.C. Circuit’s holding means that the prosecution cannot comment on a defendant’s silence while in custody prior to Mirandawarnings, even if there has been no interrogation. 

In contrast, in United States v. Cornwell, the Fourth Circuit held that presenting video footage at trial which showed the defendant’s silence in response to police questioning did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights “[b]ecause Cornwell had not received Miranda warnings at the time the video was recorded.” Similarly, the Eight Circuit in United States v. Osuna-Zepeda held that presenting evidence to the jury about a defendant’s failure to make a statement at the time of his arrest, but before he was given Miranda warnings, did not violated his Fifth Amendment right. The court noted that “an arrest by itself is not government action that implicitly induces a defendant to remain silent.”  

Eleventh Circuit precedent was established in 1991 in United States v. Rivera, in which the court held that the prosecution could comment at trial on the defendant’s silence when she was in custody because Miranda warnings had not yet been given. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Wilchcombe followed the Rivera precedent, but acknowledged the entrenched circuit split and the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court. The court noted that Salinas was not controlling because in contrast to the defendants in Wilchcombe, the Salinas defendant was not in custody at the time of the silence in question. Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit in Wilchcombe affirmed a lower court decision to allow the prosecution to use the defendants’ silence after they were apprehended but before Miranda warnings were delivered as proof of guilt.

LOOKING FORWARD

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to resolve this circuit split by granting certiorari in Palacios-Solis v. U.S. In Palacios-Solis, the U.S. Coast Guard stopped and boarded a vessel in the Pacific Ocean and detained three defendants who were suspected of smuggling cocaine. The Coast Guard officers did not recite Miranda warnings, and the defendants remained silent in the face of the officers’ questions. The Eleventh Circuit, based on its own precedent, declined to overturn the district court’s decision to allow the prosecution to use the defendants’ pre-Miranda silence as evidence of guilt. The court again acknowledged the circuit split but, as in Wilchcombe, chose to follow its circuit precedent because the Supreme Court has not addressed this specific issue. Defendants have filed a petition for writ of certiorari. 

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari to resolve this deep circuit split and to ensure that law enforcement and lower courts honor the constitutional rights of criminal defendants in custody. Until the split is resolved, defendants’ right to remain silent will vary by jurisdiction. In some circuits, their silence after arrest, but before they have been told they have the right to remain silent, can be used against them at trial. 

Prosecution cannot use defendants’ responses to custodial interrogation against them if they have not received Miranda warnings, nor can prosecution use non-response to questions after Miranda warnings have been given. But in the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, the government can use defendants’ silence in the face of custodial interrogation against them when police do not recite Miranda warnings. As Judge Rosenbaum’s state in her concurring opinion in Palacios-Solis, such an anomalous result “eviscerates the purposes of Miranda” and creates a significant risk of violating the Fifth Amendment rights of criminal defendants in those circuits. A suspect in custody cannot voluntarily relinquish the privilege against self-incrimination if he doesn’t know he has the privilege in the first place.

Additionally, as  the D.C. Circuit noted in U.S. v. Moore, allowing the prosecution to comment at trial on a defendant’s pre-Miranda silence while in custody provides a perverse incentive for law enforcement to delay Miranda warnings and use a defendant’s refusal to answer questions against him or her at trial. Until the Supreme Court clarifies this issue and resolves the circuit split, the extent of a defendant’s right to remain silent after arrest will vary by jurisdiction. 

Rules of Interrogation: Title IX and the Opportunity to Cross-Examine Complainants

BACKGROUND

Title IX, passed as part of the Educational Amendments of 1972, states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Three Supreme Court decisions during the 1990s interpreted Title IX to require schools to respond adequately and appropriately to incidents of sexual harassment and violence perpetrated against students.

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued what is referred to as a “Dear Colleague” letter, which provided guidance to schools and reminded them of their obligation to address incidents of sexual assault as civil rights matters under Title IX. In this letter, the OCR under the Obama administration made recommendations regarding procedures schools should follow when addressing a Title IX complaint. One procedural recommendation by the OCR was to discourage allowing parties to personally question and cross-examine each other during a hearing on alleged sexual violence. The OCR reasoned that this method may be “traumatic or intimidating” and would potentially foster a hostile environment. Additionally, schools are not required to allow cross-examination of witnesses.

Most recently, the Department of Education under Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration has announced its intention to issue sweeping changes to the rules governing campus sexual assault. One of the major rules proposed through the early 2019 notice-and-comment procedure was a requirement that schools allow cross-examination of those alleging sexual harassment or assault.

THE ISSUE

In sexual misconduct cases, are schools required to provide a respondent with the opportunity for live cross-examination of the complainant and his or her representatives?

THE SPLIT

In 2018, the Sixth Circuit heard the case Doe v. Baum (2018). John Doe, the plaintiff and initial respondent in a sexual misconduct investigation at the University of Michigan, filed suit after the case made its way through the university’s appeals process. When the investigation was resolved in the complainant’s favor, Mr. Doe voluntarily withdrew from the university but later claimed that the university’s disciplinary procedures were in violation of both the Due Process Clause and Title IX. His argument was that, because the university’s decision turned on a finding of credibility, the school should have been required to provide him with the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that the University of Michigan did violate the student’s right to due process by failing to afford him the right to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses.

Relying on the decision in Baum, a respondent in a sexual assault investigation at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst filed suit after the university held a hearing and eventually expelled him. The respondent, Mr. Haidak, argued that his rights under Title IX and the Due Process Clause were violated because the university did not provide him with the opportunity to interrogate the complainant. In a split from the ruling in the Sixth Circuit, the First Circuit held in Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst (2018) that it is not a categorical requirement that schools must provide respondents with the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, either directly or through a representative. The court explained that a school’s decision to examine the witnesses and parties by using a neutral factfinder would not be so fundamentally flawed in its procedure as to deprive the respondent of their right to due process. The Court reasoned that requiring the right to the kind of cross-examination demanded by Mr. Haidak would cause the disciplinary proceedings to essentially mirror a common law trial, which the First Circuit deemed unnecessary.

LOOKING FORWARD

Title IX administrators anticipate publication of the finalized regulations any day now. The proposed regulations relied heavily on the Baum decision and procedural requirements as outlined by the Sixth Circuit, conflicting with the First Circuit in Haidak. It remains to be seen what procedures will be required by the final Title IX regulations, but it is unlikely we will see any shift away from the rationale and procedures as outlined in Baum.

Educational institutions in the First Circuit will be forced to take into account both the Haidak decision and the new regulations when updating their Title IX policies. Additionally, many universities utilize the method of fact-finding supported by Haidak, which allows for a neutral party to interview the complainant and respondent. The split between the First and Sixth Circuits coupled with the introduction of the new Title IX regulations by the Department of Education will force different institutions to follow different sets of rules depending on the jurisdiction in which they are located. Various Title IX cases are awaiting trial or adjudication across the country, and experts are eager to find out which of the procedural frameworks appear to be the standard. With these rulings, it is becoming increasingly more likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to consider the Title IX procedures.

For further reading, see: First Circuit Splits from Sixth Circuit and Education Department on Title IX (2019), OCR Is About to Rock Our Worlds (2020) by Brett A. Sokolow, and 5 College Title IX Lawsuits to Watch (2019) by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf.

Accuracy v. Finality: The Implications of Habeas Rights Based on AEDPA Interpretations

BACKGROUND

With the release of the film Just Mercy, the debate over balancing the prevention of wrongful convictions against the assurance of finality in serious criminal matters has once again come into the spotlight. This dispute is not only receiving national attention in pop culture, but is also making headlines in the judicial field with the emergence of a new circuit split.

A habeas petition is a method invoked by prisoners seeking an early release by challenging the legitimacy of their detention. In 1996, the ability to file habeas petitions was limited with the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, a prisoner has just one opportunity to file a motion to vacate the earlier sentence. A second opportunity is permitted only when the Supreme Court adopts a new and favorable rule of constitutional law. Prisoners are also restricted to just one habeas petition, unless they can demonstrate that AEDPA’s remedy is “inadequate or ineffective.”

THE ISSUE

Can the AEDPA remedy be considered inadequate or ineffective, thereby circumventing the single habeas restriction, when a new rule of statutory construction is adopted by a circuit court?

THE SPLIT

In Hueso v. Barnhart (2020), the Sixth Circuit split from the Fourth Circuit, interpreting AEDPA to increase restrictions on habeas rights. Hueso was convicted of drug trafficking in Alaska. He was initially sentenced to 10 years in prison; however, the term was doubled under a federal sentencing law. The year after his conviction, the Supreme Court rejected the interpretation permitting doubling. At the time, Hueso’s counsel had already filed a Motion to Vacate challenging evidence, which was rejected. Counsel then filed a habeas petition based on the Supreme Court ruling. The court denied the petition based on Sixth Circuit precedent that barred habeas cases from entertaining challenges based on sentencing. However, in 2016, the Sixth Circuit overturned its previous holding, thereby permitting sentencing-based habeas petitions.

As a result, Hueso’s counsel filed another habeas petition, but this time it was rejected under AEDPA. Hueso appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that he should be permitted to file a second habeas under AEDPA because the AEDPA remedy was inadequate and ineffective. The Sixth Circuit denied the appeal on two bases. First, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that the Supreme Court ruling rejecting double sentencing could not be introduced in a subsequent challenge as the decision was made while Hueso’s first Motion to Vacate was pending. The court reasoned that the decision was available at the time of the challenge and, therefore, the failure to mention it barred a second attempt. Second, the Sixth Circuit held that the second habeas petition was correctly denied because the basis of the petition centered on a circuit court decision to permit sentencing-based habeas petitions. The Sixth Circuit rationalized that this decision was not constitutional law, as required under AEDPA, and thus could not be a basis for seeking to file subsequent petitions.

The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning diverged from the Fourth Circuit’s prior interpretation in United States v. Wheeler (2018). Wheeler was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm. Wheeler entered into a plea deal, agreeing to an enhanced sentence with a mandatory minimum of 120 months. The next year, Wheeler’s counsel filed a Motion to Vacate, citing both inefficient counsel and the fact that the conviction did not qualify for an enhanced sentence. The Motion was denied based on Fourth Circuit precedent allowing a maximum aggravated sentence to be imposed. Wheeler’s counsel sought to appeal by filing a certificate of appealability. While the appeal was pending, the previous precedent relied upon was overturned by the Fourth Circuit with a finding that a district court could only consider the maximum sentence that the particular defendant could receive in enhanced sentence matters. However, Wheeler’s appeal was still denied based on the reasoning that the new decision could not be applied retroactively.

Wheeler’s counsel subsequently filed a habeas petition, arguing that the AEDPA remedy was inadequate and ineffective. In this case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the inadequacy on appeal. The court reasoned:

“[W]e conclude that [AEDPA] is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first … motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping requirements … for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.”

LOOKING FORWARD

Following the Wheeler decision, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied in March 2019, before the split emerged. The developing split has the potential for unfortunate consequences for prisoners based solely on the region they are imprisoned in. The split will inevitably result in disparate results concerning a prisoner’s rights to seek relief and retrial in the case of wrongful convictions. In the Sixth Circuit, Judge Karen Nelson Moore acknowledged the disparity in her dissent, pointing out that Hueso would “almost certainly prevail” had he attacked his sentence the first time, and noting that, as a result of the majority interpretation, Hueso would be spending another decade incarcerated.

Reading the Fifth: Supreme Court Exercises its Right to Remain Silent on What Comprises a “Criminal Case”

BACKGROUND

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to bear witness against themselves in a criminal case. Courts have struggled with the scope of this protection, particularly regarding what comprises a “criminal case.” Does the term extend to pre-trial proceedings, such as a bail hearing? Has a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination been violated if the compelled statement in question is never used in a court of law?

Over the past thirty years, the Supreme Court has never directly resolved the question of what constitutes a “criminal case.” In dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Supreme Court indicated that the Fifth Amendment right was merely a trial right. But later, in Mitchell v. United States (1999) the Supreme Court indicated that the right extended to sentencing hearings.

The question of what comprises a criminal case was more recently addressed in Chavez v. Martinez (2003). In his plurality opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that a statement was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination where the individual first hadn’t been charged with a crime and where the individual’s statements had not been used in a criminal case. Thomas further wrote:

“Mere coercion doesn’t violate the self-incrimination clause minus use of compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness…a ‘criminal case’ at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings.”

Three other justices disagreed, arguing that self-incrimination is complete the moment a confession is compelled, regardless of whether the statement is used at trial.

After the opinions in Chavez were released, a circuit split developed over the definition of a criminal case under the Fifth Amendment.

THE ISSUE

Does the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination include statements compelled in pre-trial proceedings?

THE SPLIT

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Circuits resolved this question in favor of Justice Thomas’s view, holding that the right against self-incrimination is only a trial right. In Renda v. King (2003), the Third Circuit determined that questioning while in police custody without providing Miranda warnings is not a Fifth Amendment violation if the individual is never charged with a crime and their responses are never used in a trial.

But on the other hand, in Vogt v. City of Hays (2017) the Tenth Circuit resolved this question in favor of a broader reading of the term “criminal case,” allowing the term to include certain pre-trial proceedings. The Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits take a similar view of the right against self-incrimination.

The facts of Vogt are unusual. In Vogt, a police officer for the City of Hays admitted during an interview with a neighboring police department that he had illegally retained a knife obtained during his employment as a police officer. The neighboring police department agreed to hire Vogt on the condition that he report the illegal retention of the knife to the Hays police department. Upon Vogt’s admission, Hays initiated a criminal investigation against him. The charges were dropped, but Vogt sued, claiming that the state violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by inducing him to confess.

The Tenth Circuit in Vogt concluded—after examining the text of the Fifth Amendment and the Founders’ intent—that the right against self-incrimination includes pre-trial proceedings. The court noted that the Fifth Amendment makes no mention of “trial” or “criminal prosecution,” instead using the term “criminal case.” The court pointed to Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892) wherein the government argued that a witness could not invoke the Fifth Amendment in a grand jury proceeding because it was not a “criminal case.” The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument there, holding that the “criminal case” of the Fifth Amendment is a broader term than the Sixth Amendment’s “criminal prosecution.”

Additionally, to determine the meaning of “criminal case,” the Tenth Circuit consulted the most prominent dictionary of the Framers’ era: purportedly Noah Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language. In this dictionary, “case” was defined as “a cause or suit in court.” This definition, where “suit” is understood to be nearly synonymous with “cause,” indicates that the Framers understood the criminal case to encompass more than merely the trial. From these facts, Tenth Circuit concluded that the right against self-incrimination is more than just a trial right.

LOOKING FORWARD

The City of Hays appealed the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Vogt, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 28, 2017. The case was argued before the Court on February 20, 2018; however, whether this split will be resolved by the Vogt appeal is yet to be seen. Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor both noted the case was “odd,” and Justice Breyer even questioned whether the strange and distinguishing facts of Vogt made it an appropriate one for the Court to take. The Supreme Court has the option to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, but it is likely that the Court will publish an opinion resolving this constitutional issue soon.

On a constitutional question of this magnitude, let’s hope the Supreme Court doesn’t choose to plead the Fifth.

Does Pre-Trial Detention Toll a Term of Supervised Release?

Supervised Release

For some people who are convicted of a criminal offense, a sentence can include a term of supervised release (also known as special or mandatory parole). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624, the federal supervised release statute, a term of supervised release begins on the day that a person is released into the custody of a parole officer. The federal supervised release statute also provides that the term of supervised release is tolled during any period where the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a different federal, state, or local crime.

The Issue

Jason Mont began a five-year period of supervised release on March 6, 2012. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Mont was arrested on state charges and held in pre-trial detention until he pleaded guilty in October 2016. In June 2017, Mr. Mont’s supervised release was revoked, and he was ordered to serve an additional 42 months for violating his supervised release. In United States v. Mont (2018), Mr. Mont claimed that the court did not have jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release, arguing that his supervised release ended on March 6, 2017 (five years after he was initially released). Following circuit precedent established by United States v. Goins (2008), the Sixth Circuit held that pretrial detention that leads to a conviction counts as time “in connection with a conviction,” as described in the federal statute.

The Split

Several circuits have spoken to whether time served in pretrial detention counts as time “in connection with a conviction” for the purposes of the federal supervised release statute, in addition to the Sixth Circuit’s previous ruling in Goins. The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Ide (2010), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Molina-Gazca (2009), and the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Johnson (2009) have all held that pretrial detention counts for the purposes of the federal supervised release statute. In contrast, the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Marsh (2016) and the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Morales-Alejo (1999) held that time served in pretrial detention does not qualify.

The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit that has directly addressed the statutory language in the federal supervised release statute:

“A plain reading of this language…suggests that there must be an imprisonment resulting from or otherwise triggered by a criminal conviction. Pretrial detention does not fit this definition, because a person in pretrial detention has not yet been convicted and might never be convicted.”

In Mont, the Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected this interpretation.

Looking Forward

This case has not attracted much attention within the legal community since the Sixth Circuit’s ruling was handed down this past February, but it does have important ramifications for persons whose sentences include a period of supervised release. With six circuits having weighed in on opposite sides of a matter of federal statutory interpretation, the time is ripe for an aggrieved party to petition the Supreme Court for a definite ruling on this issue. Mr. Mont has ninety days from the date of the Sixth Circuit’s judgment to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court – while this deadline has not passed, it is not yet clear whether he will file a petition. In the alternative, given that this issue arises out of different interpretations of a federal statute, Congress could pass a bill to amend the current statute and clarify whether pretrial detention that leads to a conviction counts as time served in connection with a conviction.

Do the due process restrictions on shackling criminal defendants apply equally to jury and non-jury proceedings?

Background

Due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments restricts the use of physical restraints on criminal defendants during a criminal trial. Because shackles are inherently prejudicial, the Supreme Court instructed in Deck v. Morrison (2005) that defendants should only be shackled during trial as a last resort. Shackles interfere with a jury’s ability to make accurate determinations about both guilt and sentencing because they imply to a jury that the defendant is dangerous, and may cause a jury to infer negative attributes about the defendant’s character.

The Court established a rule in Deck that physical restraints that are visible to a jury may only be used after a trial court determination that they are justified by an essential state interest, based on particular concerns in a specific defendant’s trial. For example, a trial court may find that a particular defendant poses such severe security risks that shackling is necessary to protect the occupants of the courtroom. Judges may not impose blanket rules about the use of restraints, and the inquiry must be specific to concerns about the particular defendant. The Deck rule applies to both guilt-determination proceedings and to sentencing proceedings.

The Court builds the rule in Deck v. Morrison from three essential principles:

  • The presumption of a defendant’s innocence until proven guilty. Visible restraints erode the fairness of the criminal proceeding by implying that the defendant is dangerous and tipping the scale in favor of guilt.
  • The defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. Shackles interfere with a defendant’s ability to move freely to communicate with her attorney. Defendants physically struggle to write when they are restricted by shackles, which limits their ability to effectively communicate with counsel during criminal proceedings.
  • The dignity and decorum of the courtroom is necessary to support confidence that the legal system pursues justice as it handles the potential deprivation of liberty. Courtroom dignity requires that defendants are treated respectfully.

The Issue

The Court only addressed jury proceedings in Deck. The Deck holding left lower courts to determine whether a defendant’s due process rights require the same justification for shackles in proceedings without juries.

The Split

The Second Circuit does not require a specific evaluation of the need for restraints in non-jury proceedings. Because juror prejudice is the primary concern for limiting the use of restraints in the courtroom, the Second Circuit examined in United States v. Zuber (1997) whether a concern of prejudice is present when judges rather than juries do the sentencing.

We traditionally assume that judges, unlike juries, are not prejudiced by impermissible factors, …, and we make no exception here. We presume that where, as here, the court defers without further inquiry to the recommendation of the Marshals Service that a defendant be restrained at sentencing, the court will not permit the presence of the restraints to affect its sentencing decision.

Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Lafond (2015) that the Deck rule against restraints only limits the use of restraints at proceedings with juries.

The Ninth Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez (2017). The court extended the Deck rule to non-jury proceedings and clarified that it applies in pretrial, trial, and sentencing proceedings. The Ninth Circuit now requires that, before shackling a criminal defendant in both jury and non-jury proceedings, courts must decide if the security concerns with the particular defendant outweigh the infringement on the defendant’s due process right.

Continuing with the rationale for the Deck rule, the court applied the principle of presuming a defendant’s innocence until proven guilty.

The principle [that defendants are innocent until proven guilty] isn’t limited to juries or trial proceedings. It includes the perception of any person who may walk into a public courtroom, as well as those of the jury, the judge and court personnel. A presumptively innocent defendant has the right to be treated with respect and dignity in a public courtroom, not like a bear on a chain.

Using the third Deck justification, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that dignity and decorum require consistent application of the rule:

Courtrooms are palaces of justice, imbued with a majesty that reflects the gravity of proceedings designed to deprive a person of liberty or even life. A member of the public who wanders into a criminal courtroom must immediately perceive that it is a place where justice is administered with due regard to individuals whom the law presumes to be innocent. That perception cannot prevail if defendants are marched in like convicts on a chain gang. Both the defendant and the public have the right to a dignified, inspiring and open court process. Thus, innocent defendants may not be shackled at any point in the courtroom unless there is an individualized showing of need.

Looking Forward

The Supreme Court recently granted a writ of certiorari for Sanchez-Gomez, but declined to take up the issue of whether due process prohibits the use of restraints in non-jury proceedings. The circuit split and conflicting rationales present a need for clarity on this important constitutional issue.

 

 

 

 

Agree to Disagree: Defining Submission to Police Authority

Issue

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against unwarranted searches and seizures, which begs the question—what exactly constitutes a seizure? In California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Supreme Court held that a “seizure” requires either physical force or submission to police authority. In the wake of this decision, circuit courts have struggled to define the phrase, “submission to police authority,” resulting in a split of authority. The emergent view in the Courts of Appeals, although admittedly uneven within the circuits, is that when a suspect does nearly anything more than pausing briefly, including any significant verbal engagement with the officer, that action is strong evidence of submission.” United States v. Camacho (1st Cir. 2011). Some courts have adopted this rather broad interpretation of the term, imparting a low standard for submission. Other courts have adopted a narrow view, requiring additional conduct to meet the standard.

The issue of defining submission is incredibly significant because of its impact on other aspects of a case. For example, whether or not a defendant is deemed to have submitted to police authority can determine what evidence may be presented at trial, which can significantly influence the outcome of a case. The Fourth Amendment serves to protect against unwarranted invasions of privacy by requiring probable cause. The Fourth Amendment “prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is enforced through the exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Camacho (1st Cir. 2011).

The Split

The following circuits have adopted the view that brief compliance followed by flight does not constitute submission.

  • Second Circuit: In United States v. Huertas (2d Cir. 2017), the court held that, in dealing with the police, conduct that amounts to evasion cannot be considered submission.
  • Third Circuit: In direct contradiction with the Tenth Circuit’s ruling, the court in United States v. Valentine (3d Cir. 2000) held that a brief pause does not make for a submission, and therefore the defendant in this case was not seized within the Fourth Amendment meaning.
  • Ninth Circuit: In United States v. Hernandez (9th Cir. 1994), the court rejected the defendant’s argument that he was “seized” because he briefly submitted to the police officer’s show of authority before fleeing. The court here requires a discernible showing of compliance to constitute submission:

“We decline to adopt a rule whereby momentary hesitation and direct eye contact prior to flight constitute submission to a show of authority. Such a rule would encourage suspects to flee after the slightest contact with an officer in order to discard evidence, and yet still maintain Fourth Amendment protections.”

The following circuits have adopted the view that brief compliance followed by flight does constitute submission.

  • First Circuit: In United States v. Camacho (1st Cir. 2011), the court held that once a defendant responds to questions posed by the police, he or she has submitted to police authority.
  • Tenth Circuit: In United States v. Morgan (10th Cir. 1991), the court held that even the slightest form of compliance, in this case, a momentary hesitation, is enough to constitute submission. The court explains its reasoning as follows:

“Here, the intrusion on Mr. Morgan in regard to the initial attempted questioning by Officer Eubanks and the subsequent exchange between the two was minimal. However, since Officer Eubanks had followed the car in which Defendant was a passenger for several blocks with his red lights flashing; since Officer Eubanks exited from a marked police car, in uniform, and asked the Defendant to hold up; and since Defendant, at least momentarily, yielded to the Officer’s apparent show of authority, we find Mr. Morgan was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during the initial portion of the encounter.”

  • D.C. Circuit: In United States v. Brodie (D.C. Cir. 2014), the court ruled that when a defendant complies with an officer’s orders by engaging in overt acts, such as putting one’s hands on the car, the defendant has submitted to police authority.

Looking Forward

Although the Supreme Court expressly outlined the requirements for a “seizure” in California v. Hodari D. (1991), it still left some questions unanswered—circuit courts were tasked with the responsibility of defining “submission to police authority,” and conflicting rulings resulted. Branden Huertas submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in December 2017, in hopes of appealing the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Huertas (2017). In the petition, Huertas discusses the split among the lower courts and urges the Supreme Court to review the issue. In his petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Huertas notes: “The conflict is widely recognized by courts and commentators. It also is deeply entrenched; the courts on either side of the split have acknowledged the contrary reasoning of their peers and have had multiple opportunities to reconsider their positions, but the conflict has persisted. Thus, only this Court can restore uniformity on this important question of Fourth Amendment law.” For further reading, see the petition for writ of certiorari: Huertas v. United States.

Card Declined: The Credit Card Fraud – Crime Sentencing Transaction

The Issue

Wire fraud, an intentional act to defraud another individual or entity of property (usually money) through electronic means, is becoming an increasingly common and widespread crime in the United States. According to a study by Javelin Strategy & Research in partnership with LifeLock, Inc., approximately 15.4 million consumers were victims of identity theft or fraud in 2016, up 16 percent from 2015, and more than ever recorded by the firm. Obtaining credit card numbers, encoding them on blank cards, and making purchases or withdrawals from automated teller machines (ATMs) has become a favorite medium of crime among fraudsters. When determining how a perpetrator of wire fraud should be sentenced for possessing credit cards that are canceled, expired or attached to an account from which all funds have been successfully siphoned, a key issue is whether the “access device” is in fact usable by the perpetrator.

The Split

Credit cards that have been encoded with stolen numbers and used fraudulently are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1) and (e)(3). Of particular importance, Application Note 3(F)(i) of § 2B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines says in cases involving “unauthorized access devices,” in this case credit cards, “loss includes any unauthorized charges made with the counterfeit access device.”

The Ninth Circuit ruled on this issue in 2012, when it considered United States v. Onyesoh, which explored access device fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1029 and whether the government must prove the usability of an expired credit card number in order for a district court to increase the severity of a sentence. In Onyesoh, the Ninth Circuit held that unauthorized access devices must be usable:

An “unauthorized access device” must be an “access device,” which itself must be capable of obtaining “money, goods, services, or any other thing of value.” 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1) and (e)(3). The statute’s language is clear and we give it full effect—unauthorized access devices are a subset of access devices, and therefore must be capable of obtaining something of value…The statute is intended to target major fraud operations instead of individual [fraud]…But the kind of devices potentially covered by the statute says nothing about the quantum of proof necessary to establish usability. The legislative history simply does not address that issue. No court, in this or any other circuit, has read usability out of the statute.

But in deciding United States v. Popovski at the end of 2017, the Seventh Circuit changed the score. Judge Easterbrook adopted the Sixth Circuit’s 2015 decision in United States v. Moon, arguing that the statute and note must be read together:

[T]he definition of “unauthorized access device” in § 1029(e)(3) includes “any access device that is lost, stolen, expired, revoked, canceled, or obtained with intent to defraud”. This necessarily implies that a card, number, or other identifier with a potential to obtain goods or initiate a transfer of funds remains an “access device” even if it is “expired, revoked, [or] canceled.” These two statutory paragraphs can work together only if paragraph (1) defines an “access device” according to its nature—the sort of thing that could in principle be used to get goods or funds, whether or not it would work in practice…. If a calculation under Application Note 3(F)(i) overstates the seriousness of the offense, a district judge must adjust accordingly. That process, rather than warping the language of § 1029(e), is the way to avoid the Ninth Circuit’s parade of horribles.

While the Ninth Circuit’s decision was likely predicated on a desire to prevent obtuse sentences for criminals who possessed but did not use expired credit card numbers, Judge Easterbrook’s scathing critique of the Ninth Circuit made clear that the Seventh Circuit, like the Sixth Circuit, will not cut financial criminals any sentencing slack:

Like the panel in Onyesoh, we too think that a district judge should not increase a sentence just because the defendant possessed ancient pieces of plastic or lists of numbers useful only during the reign of Xerxes. But we disagree with Onyesoh’s view that this result should be achieved by treating the language in § 1029(e)(3) as irrelevant to the meaning of “access device”. Courts must read the statute to reconcile these paragraphs.

Looking Forward 

After a new sentencing hearing, the Ninth Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court denied Onyesoh’s petition for a writ of certiorari.  Certiorari is currently pending for Popovski, but the Supreme Court has not expressed interest in ruling on the case in the current session.

Judge Easterbrook, in deciding United States v. Popovski, came down hard on the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the sentencing law regarding this sort of wire fraud. He argued, in part, that district judges can come to a workable resolution under the current law without disregarding any specific portion of the statute. Following Judge Easterbrook’s logic, it seems unlikely that this issue will pique the Supreme Court’s interest. Nevertheless, if credit card fraud continues to rise at record levels and continues to emerge as the cause celebre of the consumer crime world, constituent pressure may push Congress to act.

 

Waive after Waive: Can the Government Waive a Challenge to Fourth Amendment Standing?

Background: Not All Standing is Done on the Same Legs

The most familiar idea of “standing” is based in Article III and is about whether someone can participate in the case at all. However, the term “standing” has attached itself to a narrower issue within Fourth Amendment law, despite then-Justice Rehnquist’s misgivings in Rakas v. Illinois.

Fourth Amendment standing is shorthand for the requirement that in a motion to suppress evidence from an unconstitutional search and seizure, the defendant must show that the search violated the defendant’s own personal rights of privacy, liberty, or possession. A defendant lacks Fourth Amendment standing if they attempt to suppress evidence based on the violation of someone else’s rights, for example, when a search of a car one does not own uncovers a gun that one, likewise, cannot lay claim to—the move not permitted in Rakas.

It is the responsibility of the government to bring a challenge to a defendant’s Fourth Amendment standing, but what happens when it does not do so at the district level? Is it waived in any future proceedings?

The Split

Two circuits have held that the government does not waive Fourth Amendment standing issues if it fails to raise them in district court: the First Circuit and the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit case on point, United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, clearly states that the government does not waive a lack of Fourth Amendment standing based on a previous case pertaining to Article III standing, surely causing Chief Justice Rehnquist to spin uncontrollably in his grave:

The government cannot waive Rodriguez’s lack of standing, and therefore any argument based on waiver must fail…(“[I]t is elementary that standing relates to the justiciability of a case and cannot be waived by the parties.”).

On the other hand, seven circuits hold that the government does in fact waive Fourth Amendment standing challenges if it fails to raise them in district court, though some circuits are more lenient than others. This majority position is rooted in the idea that just because the word “standing” is involved, it does not implicate Article III jurisdictional issues—it views Fourth Amendment standing as simply shorthand for the substance of the Fourth Amendment.

Most of these circuits (namely, the Third, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh) hold that the government may not raise an issue of Fourth Amendment standing for the first time on appeal. If the government fails to challenge Fourth Amendment standing on the district level, it amounts to a complete concession on the issue by the government.

The Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Paopao, gives the government some wiggle room, allowing challenges to Fourth Amendment standing to be raised for the first time on appeal. It makes clear in United States v. Ewing, however, that failure to place a challenge to Fourth Amendment standing in the appellate brief only to bring it up at oral argument is not a valid move, and amounts to a waiver of the challenge.

The latest circuit to join the waive-friendly bunch is the Sixth. United States v. Noble leans toward the Ninth Circuit’s holding, though it is not so lenient. The Sixth Circuit first criticizes the approach of the First and Eighth Circuits, noting:

“Fourth Amendment standing is akin to an element of a claim and does not sound in Article III. The government, like other litigants, therefore, can forfeit or waive an argument that defendants lack Fourth Amendment standing.”

Later, the Sixth Circuit lays out its own approach to waivability:

“[W]e would allow the government to raise an objection to a defendant’s Fourth Amendment standing for the first time on appeal, provided that the government can show that the defendant plainly lacked standing and that our failure to recognize it would “seriously affect…the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” …However, if the government fails to raise the issue in its opening brief on appeal, then the objection is waived.”

Looking Forward

While the Supreme Court has released opinions concerning Fourth Amendment standing, it has not explicitly stated whether the government waives the issue if it fails to bring it up in district court. Considering the precedent of Rakas, if the right mix of criminal procedures twists and turns its way up to the highest Court, it would not be unreasonable to wager on the path chosen by most circuits today. For what it’s worth, however, this blogger would like to see a reexamination of the general idea that a defendant cannot acquire Fourth Amendment standing without an interest in the property searched, especially when that unconstitutional search specifically targeted that defendant.

It Seemed like the Reasonable Approach at the Time: A Circuit Split on the Meaning of “Reasonable Belief” in Search and Seizure

How Many Warrants?

Two major Supreme Court decisions are at play here concerning the constitutionality of officers entering residences to execute arrest warrants when residency of the suspect is uncertain.

In the aftermath of the first case, Payton v. New York (S.Ct. 1980), the Courts of Appeals developed a two-prong test to assess the constitutionality of an officer’s entry to execute an arrest warrant: the officer must have a “reasonable belief” that (1) the “arrestee lives in the residence, and that (2) the “arrestee is within the residence.” United States v. Gay (10th Cir. 2001).

One year after Payton, the Supreme Court held that officers may not enter the residence of a third party to execute an arrest warrant unless they first obtain a search warrant based on the belief that the suspect “might be a guest there.” Steagald v. United States (S.Ct. 1981). This created a stricter standard for entering officers if they believe only that the suspect is a common “guest” in the residence rather than a resident or immediately within the residence. Thus, officers would much prefer that the arrestee is a resident and within the residence as opposed to being simply a guest.  The determination of whether officers need only an arrest warrant to enter versus an arrest warrant and a search warrant to enter a residence is entirely dependent on an officer’s “reasonable belief.”

The circuit courts have since been faced with discerning what constitutes a “reasonable belief,” thus determining when both an arrest and a search warrant are necessary for constitutional entry into third party residences as opposed to only an arrest warrant.

Circuit Split

The Third Circuit is the most recent voice to enter the interpretive dispute surrounding the standard of “reasonable belief.” United States v. Vasquez-Algarin (3rd Cir. 2016).

Joining the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, the Third Circuit held that reasonable belief should be viewed as the functional equivalent of probable cause, and thus the same standard.  The practical effect of requiring a probable cause standard is that it makes it more difficult to enter only with an arrest warrant. The Third Circuit had two primary reasons for their decision:

  • First, the Supreme Court’s use of the phrase “reason to believe,” when considered in the context of Payton and more generally the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, supports a probable cause standard.
  • Second, and more fundamentally, requiring that law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe their suspect resides at and is present within the dwelling before making a forced entry is the only conclusion commensurate with the constitutional protections the Supreme Court has accorded to the home.

Some of Vasquez-Algarin’s reasoning echoes that of the Sixth Circuit, both noting that on several occasions the Supreme Court has used the same “reason to believe” language from Payton “as a stand-in for ‘probable cause.’” (3d Cir. 2016).

The DC Circuit, First, Second, and Tenth Circuits have held that the standard for reasonable belief falls short of the standard for probable cause belief. The DC Circuit reasons that it is “more likely . . . that the Supreme Court in Payton used a phrase other than ‘probable cause’ because it meant something other than ‘probable cause.’” (2005). The Tenth Circuit equates probable cause requirements with calls for “actual knowledge of the suspect’s true residence.” (1999). It believes extending probable cause as the standard for a “reasonable basis” for determining that an individual “lived in the residence and . . . could be found within at the time of entry,” would “effectively make Payton a dead letter.” Valdez v. McPheters (10th Cir. 1999).

The Third Circuit claims that the Supreme Court’s choice of stand-in language undermines the DC Circuit’s conclusion that Payton’s ‘reason to believe’ language should be interpreted loosely. The Third Circuit explains that the Supreme Court’s use of “reason to believe” as a stand-in for “probably cause” indicates the Court’s belief that the standard for the two is the same.

Looking Forward

The incongruence in requirements for only arrest warrants versus arrest and search warrants creates such a fundamental constitutional discrepancy that the Supreme Court should address it soon.

For the last 36 years, courts have been left to grapple with the interpretation of the Court’s language in Payton, and the circuits seem to have pretty evenly split on the meaning of a “reasonable belief.” Until the Court addresses the standard for reasonable belief varying degrees of scrutiny will continue to be imposed on officers, and the degree of protection of an individual’s right to be secure in their home will remain grey.