United States v. Wilson

Decision Date25 October 2012
Docket NumberDocket No. 11–915.
Citation699 F.3d 235
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Eric C. WILSON, aka Eric Wilson, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Brenda K. Sannes, Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of New York (Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney, Elizabeth Horsman, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Syracuse, NY, for Appellant.

Michael Rhodes–Devey, Albany, NY, for Appellee.

Marsha K. Schmidt, Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker, LLP (John Tabinaca Plata, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.

Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, CALABRESI and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

POOLER, Circuit Judge:

The United States of America appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge ), suppressing evidence found following the stop and subsequent search of a vehicle driven by defendant Eric C. Wilson. See United States v. Wilson, 754 F.Supp.2d 450 (N.D.N.Y.2010). The vehicle stop was executed by two officers of the St. Regis Mohawk Police Department (“SRMPD”), one of whom was also cross-designated as a U.S. customs officer by the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The district court held that the vehicle stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked the authority to act as law enforcement officers at the time of the stop. The court reasoned that the officers could not validly act as police officers under New York law because they stopped the vehicle outside their territorial jurisdiction and that they could not validly exercise customs authority because they had not obtained prior authorization as required by ICE policy governing designated customs officers.

On appeal, the government does not dispute the district court's determinations that the officers stopped Wilson in violation of New York law and ICE policy. The government instead argues that neither breach violates the Fourth Amendment because, under Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 172, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008), the Fourth Amendment does not incorporate state law or agency procedures or requirements. We hold that the violation of the ICE policy requiring prior authorization did not affect the constitutionality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment and that the stop and subsequent search comported with the Fourth Amendment because they were justified by probable cause. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the district court. Because we determine that the stop was a constitutional exercise of designated customs authority, we do not decide whether the stop was also a constitutional exercise of New York police authority.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Eric Wilson was arrested following a vehicle stop by Detective Sergeant Matthew Rourke and Investigator Peter Barnes of the SRMPD near the United States–Canada border in northern New York, just outside the St. Regis Mohawkreservation.1 Two U.S. Border Patrol agents arrived on the scene and searched the vehicle, turning up three duffel bags filled with marijuana. The agents took Wilson into custody. A grand jury indicted Wilson on one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

I.

Wilson moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of his vehicle as the fruit of an unconstitutional vehicle stop and search. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and made the following findings.

A.

The St. Regis Mohawk Reservation (the “Reservation”) abuts the border between the United States and Canada. The Reservation is part of the Akwesasne Mohawk Territory, which extends over the border to include the Akwesasne Mohawk reservation in Canada. At certain points within the Territory, a vehicle can travel to and from the United States without passing through a port of entry designated by U.S. Customs.

Wilson is a citizen of the United States. At the time of the vehicle stop, his driver's license indicated that he lived in St. Regis Falls, New York. St. Regis Falls lies approximately 45 minutes southwest of the location of the vehicle stop. Wilson is not a member of a federally recognized tribe in the United States, nor does he have any equivalent status in Canada.

Sgt. Matthew Rourke and Inv. Peter Barnes were officers of the SRMPD, the tribal police department for the St. Regis Mohawk tribe. Under New York law, members of the SRMPD had full authority to act as New York police officers within the boundaries of the St. Regis Reservation, seeN.Y. Indian Law § 114(1), (2); N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law § 1.20(34)(u), but beyond the reservation they were without authority to “exercise the duties or functions of a police officer” (subject to limited exceptions not relevant here), seeN.Y. Indian Law § 114(8).

In addition, Sgt. Rourke was one of two SRMPD officers cross-designated as a U.S. customs officer by ICE. See19 U.S.C. § 1401(i) (providing for cross-designation of customs officers).2 At the suppressionhearing, the district court received into evidence the form designating Rourke a customs officer (“Designation form”), an ICE Office of Investigations Directive (“ICE Directive”) outlining policies governing designated customs officers, and an excerpt from the Memorandum of Understanding ICE executed with the SRMPD concerning the designation (“MOA”). Wilson stipulated at the suppression hearing that this designation paperwork was in order.

The Designation form, ICE Directive, and MOA set forth the guidelines for Rourke's use of his customs authority. The Designation form provided that Rourke was “subject to all guidelines, directives and instructions of ICE” when acting as a Customs officer. The form required that he contact the appropriate ICE Special Agent in Charge (“SAC”) or Resident Agent in Charge prior to conducting any examination or search of a vehicle. The ICE Directive provided that “the authority of a designated [c]ustoms [o]fficer is valid anywhere within the United States ... and may be exercised as such, provided that a SAC is consulted and approval is received from that SAC.” Further, the ICE Directive “strictly prohibited” a designated customs officer's [u]se of [customs] authorities without first having been coordinated and approved by the appropriate SAC.” Finally, the MOA provided that ICE designations “will be used only for the duration of the specified law enforcement activity for which the approval was extended, and to the extent of such approval.” Both the MOA and the ICE Directive include language disclaiming that they confer any private rights.

B.

On the morning of Wilson's arrest, Sgt. Rourke was monitoring radio traffic from his office in Hogansburg, New York, on the Reservation. At approximately 9:00 a.m., Officer Virginia Johnson of the SRMPD reported over the radio that she had seen a white man driving north in a green Pontiac Bonneville, heading toward an unguarded, unmarked crossing into Quebec. The Akwesasne Mohawk police in Canada reported back that they had located the vehicle and driver in Quebec, and had seen the vehicle reenter the United States through the same unmarked crossing through which it had exited.

Within minutes of hearing that the green Bonneville had returned to the United States, Sgt. Rourke and Inv. Barnes left the police station in a police vehicle and soon found the Bonneville at a truck stop outside St. Regis territory. They observed that its rear license plate was obstructed by snow and road debris.

At approximately 9:17 a.m., after following the vehicle for a short distance outside the reservation, the officers stopped the vehicle. They did not contact any ICE official prior to making the stop. Upon questioning, the driver identified himself as Eric C. Wilson (the defendant before us) and said he was on his way from his home in St. Regis Falls, New York, to go to work for a man named Phillip Tarbell. A record check showed that the vehicle was registered to Phillip Tarbell, who, the officers knew, had recently been arrested with approximately twenty pounds of marijuana. At some point, Officer Johnson arrived and identified both Wilson and the Bonneville as the driver and vehicle that she had earlier observed.

Around the time that Sgt. Rourke learned that Phillip Tarbell was the registered owner of the vehicle, Sgt. Rourke telephoned ICE Agent in Charge Mario Fiacco, and obtained Agent Fiacco's authorization to search the vehicle under his designated customs authority. Sgt. Rourke then conducted a second interview with Wilson. Wilson repeated his earlier account that he was coming from his home in St. Regis Falls, was on his way to work, and had stopped for gas at the truck stop without making any other stops. Upon Sgt. Rourke's asking if Wilson had not, in fact, been to Canada, Wilson admitted he had been to Quebec and told Sgt. Rourke that he had done so to see a friend. Sgt. Rourke asked if Wilson had gone to Quebec to “score a little,” to which Wilson responded that he had visited the friend in Canada to obtain a small quantity of marijuana before going to work. He also admitted that he was in possession of a marijuana pipe.

Sgt. Rourke had not conducted any search when U.S. Border Patrol Agents Justin Chamberlain and David Marston arrived at the scene. Agent Chamberlain interviewed Wilson, who again admitted that he was returning from Canada and that he had a marijuana pipe. Agent Chamberlain searched the vehicle and found three duffel bags containing a green leafy substance that a field test determined to be marijuana.

II.

Based on these findings, the district court granted the motion to suppress and affirmed that order on reconsideration. The district court concluded that the stop was unconstitutional because Sgt. Rourke and Inv. Barnes were without lawful authority to act—either in their capacity as SRMPD officers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • U.S. v. Cooley, 17-30022
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 21 Marzo 2019
    ...115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 (1995) ; Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) ; see also Wilson , 699 F.3d at 245. United States v. Henderson , 906 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018), a case somewhat analogous to this one, recently addressed such a circumstan......
  • Rizk v. City of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 22 Mayo 2020
    ...in and of itself, amount to the violation of a right protected by the Constitution or federal law." Id. (citing United States v. Wilson , 699 F.3d 235, 238, 243 (2d Cir. 2012) ). Accordingly, an act or omission that violates police policy but does not also violate constitutional rights is n......
  • Smith v. Sawyer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 27 Enero 2020
    ...that "local police enforcement practices generally have no bearing on the reasonableness of a search or seizure." United States v. Wilson , 699 F.3d 235, 243 (2d Cir. 2012). Second, Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment should be denied because that there is a "disputed issue of fact" as t......
  • State v. Verkerk
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 3 Septiembre 2013
    ...in any way hinged on the extent to which the action in question was permissible as a matter of state law. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 235, 238 (2012) (holding that, even though Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers lacked the authority to act as law enforcement offic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT