Nivel de competitividad y posición de las empresas en el mercado

Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979)

FACTS: On March 28, 1973, three adult men (including Allen) and a 16 year old girl were riding together in a vehicle, in New York, when they were stopped for speeding. The officer spotted two handguns “positioned crosswise in an open handbag on either the front floor or the front seat of the car on the passenger side”

where the girl was seated, and she admitted the purse was hers. The officers pried open the trunk and found a machine gun and over a pound of heroin. (The vehicle belonged to the driver’s brother, and had been borrowed earlier that day; none of the occupants of the vehicle had a key.)

All four were charged and eventually convicted of possession of the handguns found inside the car, but were acquitted of possession of the contents of the trunk.

All four objected to the introduction into evidence of the guns and the drugs,

“arguing that the State had not adequately demonstrated a connection between their clients and the contraband.” Relying on a New York statute that permitted the assumption that the “presence of a firearm in an automobile is presumptive evidence of its illegal possession by all persons then occupying the vehicle”, the state court upheld the conviction. (The presumption did not apply when the weapon was found “upon the person” of one of the occupants of the vehicle.) The three men argued that “the guns were found on the person of” the girl.

Following their conviction, the three men appealed, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. The conviction was affirmed. The New York appellate court

“recognized that in some circumstances the evidence could only lead to the conclusion that the weapons were in one person’s sole possession” but held that it was a jury question in each case. Allen filed a habeas corpus request and the District Court held that the “mere presence of two guns in a woman’s handbag in a car could not reasonably give rise to the inference that they were in the possession of the three other persons in the car.” The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted certiorari.

ISSUE: Is it reasonable presume that passengers in a vehicle are aware of visible weapons, and are thus jointly in legal possession of those weapons?

HOLDING: Yes

DISCUSSION: The Court noted that “[a]s applied to the facts of this case, the presumption of possession is entirely rational.” The Court found that it was “highly improbable that she was the sole custodian of those weapons.” The guns in question “were too large to be concealed in her handbag” and were readily accessible to the driver and even the two rear seat passengers. Instead, it was more likely that the other passengers tried to “conceal their weapons in a pocketbook in the front seat.” The court equated it to a situation in which the “guns

were lying on the floor or on the seat of the car in the plain view of the three other occupants of the automobile,” and that it was “surely rational to infer that each of the [men were] fully aware of the presence of the guns and had both the ability and the intent to exercise dominion and control over the weapons.”

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court.

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)

FACTS: On August 7, 1999, a Baltimore County police officer stopped a vehicle for speeding. Inside the vehicle were Partlow, the owner and driver, Pringle, sitting in the front passenger seat and Smith, who was sitting in the back seat.

When asked, Partlow produced his registration from the glove compartment. When he opened it, the officer spotted a "large amount of rolled-up money." The officer checked Partlow's record, via computer, and found it clean. He asked Partlow to step out of the car and gave him an oral warning.

When a second officer arrived, Partlow was asked if he had "any weapons or narcotics" in the car, and he replied that he did not. He "then consented to a search of the vehicle." Officers found $763 in the glove compartment. When they pulled down the back seat armrest, which had been in the upright position between the seats initially, the found five plastic baggies of cocaine.

None of the men admitted ownership of the drugs or the money, and the officer arrested all three of the men. Later that day, Pringle waived his Miranda rights and gave a confession (oral and written) that "the cocaine belonged to him" and that the other two men in the car knew nothing of the drugs. Partlow and Smith were released.

At trial, Pringle requested a suppression of his confession, claiming that it came as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest that was not supported by probable cause.

The trial court disagreed, however, and a jury convicted Pringle of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine. A Maryland appellate court affirmed that decision, but the Court of Appeals of Maryland¹⁰⁶ reversed, holding that "absent specific facts tending to show Pringle's knowledge and dominion or control over the drugs," that the evidence was "insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest for possession."

Pringle appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court accepted certiorari.

ISSUE: May an officer arrest all occupants in a vehicle for "constructive possession" of drugs hidden inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle?

HOLDING: Yes

106 The Maryland Court of Appeals is the highest court in the Maryland state judicial system.

DISCUSSION: The Court noted that the "probable cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends upon the totality of the circumstances." The Court found it to be "an entirely reasonable inference … that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion over, the cocaine." The Court went on to state that "a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly."

Pringle had tried to argue that his arrest was merely "guilt by association," but the Court did not agree, stating there was a difference between the facts in Ybarra v.

Illinois¹⁰⁷ and the instant case. In Ybarra, the defendant was a customer in a public tavern, but in this case, the defendant, Pringle, entered a small vehicle with two others and the Court found it "reasonable for the officer to infer a common enterprise among the three men."

The Court upheld the conviction.

MISCELLANEOUS SEARCH ISSUES Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)

FACTS: Officers Muehler and Brill (Simi Valley, CA, P.D.), along with others, were involved in an investigation of a "gang-related drive by shooting." During their investigation, they developed information that one of the gang members lived at 1363 Patricia Avenue and that the "individual was armed and dangerous, since he had recently been involved in the drive by shooting." Muehler requested and received a search warrant for that address. Because of the risk assessment, it was decided that SWAT would assist in securing the house prior to the search.

On February 3, 1998, at 7 a.m., the search warrant was executed. SWAT members entered Iris Mena's bedroom, where she was sleeping. She was awakened and handcuffed, along with three other people found on the property. They were all taken to a converted garage, outfitted as a bedroom. (At some point, Mena was allowed to dress, but apparently did not have on any shoes.) As the team fanned out to do the search, Mena and the others were guarded by one or two officers, who allowed them to move about but did not remove their handcuffs.

Because the gang (the West Side Locos) was known to include illegal aliens, the officers had contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and an INS officer was with the team. During the search, the INS officer "asked for each detainee's name, date of birth, place of birth, and immigration status," and later

107 444 U.S. 85 (1979).

asked for their actual papers. "Mena's status as a permanent resident was confirmed by her papers."

During the search, the officers recovered a variety of items, including one handgun.

After approximately three hours, Mena was released from the handcuffs and she was never formally arrested as a result of the search.

Mena filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the detention was "for an unreasonable time and in an unreasonable manner,” that the warrant was overbroad, that the officers failed to "knock and announce," that they had needlessly destroyed property during the search, and that the questioning concerning her immigration status was inappropriate. The officers requested summary judgment based upon qualified immunity, and received it only on the issue of the warrant's breadth.

At trial, the jury agreed with most of Mena’s arguments and the officers appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, including the denial of qualified immunity, finding that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and objectively unreasonable to hold Mena for the length of time, and that, further, the questioning regarding her status was a separate violation. The officers appealed and the U.S.

Supreme Court accepted certiorari.

ISSUES: 1) May law enforcement officers hold an individual in handcuffs for the duration of the time a search is being conducted of their property?

2) During the course of an otherwise lawful detention, may officers ask questions concerning immigration status?

HOLDINGS: 1) Yes 2) Yes

DISCUSSION: First, the Court addressed the issue of the handcuffing. In Michigan v. Summers,¹⁰⁸ the Court held that officers are permitted "to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted." The Court noted that "[s]uch detentions are appropriate ... because the character of the additional intrusion caused by detention is slight and because the justifications for detention are substantial." Under the Summers standard, the Court reasoned, "Mena's detention was ... plainly permissible" because she was a resident of the home that was the subject of the search warrant.

The Court stated that "[i]nherent in Summers' authorization to detain an occupant of the place to be searched is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention." The Summers case "itself stressed that the risk of harm to officers and occupants is minimized 'if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.'"

108 452 U.S. 692 (1981).

The Court concluded its discussion of this particular issue by stating that "[t]he imposition of correctly applied handcuffs on Mena, who was already being lawfully detained during a search of the house, was undoubtedly a separate intrusion in addition to detention in the converted garage," and was, admittedly, "more intrusive"

than the detention described in Summers. However, it also stated that "[t]his was no ordinary search." Given the circumstances known to the officers, and "[i]n such inherently dangerous situations, the use of handcuffs minimizes the risk of harm to both officers and occupants." In addition, "the need to detain multiple occupants made the use of handcuffs all the more reasonable."

Mena had also argued that even if the initial detention in handcuffs was reasonable, that the "duration of the use of handcuffs made the detention reasonable."

However, while the court noted that the length of time could be a factor, but in this particular situation, the length of time and the circumstances were reasonable.

On the second issue, Mena argued, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, that the "officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by questioning her about her immigration status during the detention." They concluded that the "officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question Mena concerning her immigrant status because the questioning constituting a discrete Fourth Amendment event." But, the Court stated, "the premise is faulty."

The Court noted that the court had "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure."¹⁰⁹ The Court continued by saying that even with "no basis for suspecting a particular individual,"¹¹⁰ that officers may ask questions and ask for consent to search property. The lower court had determined that the questioning did not lengthen Mena's detention, but was concurrent with it, and as such, there was no additional seizure. "Hence," the Court concluded, "the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status."

The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion, and remanded the case back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

NOTE: In this case, there was no allegation of anything beyond generalized physical discomfort from the handcuffs. Actual prolonged pain or physical injury as a result of handcuffs used improperly has been consistently held to be actionable.

109 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).

110 Id.