Bailey v. United States

568 U.S. 186 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Police obtained a warrant to search a residence for a .380-caliber handgun. A confidential informant had told police he observed the gun when he was at the apartment to purchase drugs from “a heavy set black male with short hair” known as “Polo.” The search unit began preparations for executing the warrant. Officers Sneider and Gorbecki, were conducting surveillance in an unmarked car outside the residence. They observed two men leave the gated area above the basement apartment and enter a car parked in the driveway. Both matched the general physical description of “Polo.” The detectives watched the car leave the driveway. They waited for it to go a few hundred yards down the street and followed. They informed the search team of their intent to follow and detain the departing occupants. The search team then executed the search warrant at the apartment. The detectives tailed the car for about a mile--and about five minutes--before pulling the vehicle over. They ordered D and Middleton out of the car and did a patdown search of both men. The officers found no weapons but discovered a ring of keys in D's pocket. Bailey identified himself and said he was coming from his home at 103 Lake Drive. D driver's license showed his address as Bayshore, New York, the town where the confidential informant told the police the suspect, “Polo,” used to live. Middleton, said D, was giving him a ride home and confirmed they were coming from D's residence at 103 Lake Drive. The officers put both men in handcuffs. Gorbecki stated that they were being detained incident to the execution of a search warrant at 103 Lake Drive. D responded: “I don't live there. Anything you find there ain't mine, and I'm not cooperating with your investigation.” By the time the group returned to 103 Lake Drive, the search team had discovered a gun and drugs in plain view inside the apartment. D and Middleton were placed under arrest, and D's keys were seized incident to the arrest. D's keys opened the door of the basement apartment. D was charged with three federal offenses: possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S. C. §§841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii); possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S. C. §922(g)(1); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of §924(c)(1)(A)(i). D moved to suppress the apartment key and the statements he made claiming they were derived from an unreasonable seizure. The court denied the motion citing Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981), as a detention incident to the execution of a search warrant. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the denial as Summers “authorized law enforcement to detain the occupant of premises subject to a valid search warrant when that person is seen leaving those premises and the detention is effected as soon as reasonably practicable.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.