Appeals Court throws out seizure of 25K from warrantless NC search

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that federal probation officers violated a couple’s constitutional rights when seizing $25,325 during a warrantless search of a Reidsville home.

Monday’s decision reversed a trial judge’s decision allowing the government to take the money. Officials had argued that the money was tied to drug trafficking.

“The Supreme Court has recognized that a warrantless search of a probationer’s home may be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a probation condition,” Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin wrote for the unanimous 4th Circuit panel. “But these probationary searches may implicate the independent Fourth Amendment rights of third parties who are not subject to court supervision.”

“This appeal presents that third-party issue,” Benjamin added. “Federal probation officers conducted warrantless searches of two residences based on their supervision of Augustine Perez, a federal supervisee subject to warrantless search conditions. Officers first searched Perez’s reported residence and then searched a separate home, owned by Perez and occupied by Deanna Coleman, based on the officers’ belief that Perez resided there as well.”

Coleman was Perez’s girlfriend. She leased the Teal Drive home where officers recovered the money.

“As an initial matter, we conclude that a condition of supervised release that permits a warrantless search of a supervisee’s ‘property’ does not permit the government to search real property owned by him and leased by a third-party resident,” Benjamin wrote. “Additionally, we conclude that in order to rely on Perez’s supervised release conditions to search Coleman’s residence, the officers must have had probable cause to believe Perez also resided at Coleman’s home.”

“We hold that the government did not meet its burden to show probable cause and, therefore, find that the warrantless search of Coleman’s home was unconstitutional,” the 4th Circuit opinion continued. “Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Perez’s and Coleman’s motion to suppress, and the defendant currency was improperly seized and not subject to forfeiture.”

Perez was on federally supervised release when he moved from one Reidsville home to another. He maintained ownership of the original home and leased it to Coleman.

Nearly a year after Perez’s move, a confidential informant told authorities that Perez “was not living at his reported address, trafficking drugs, and traveling outside of North Carolina without permission,” according to the 4th Circuit opinion. The information prompted authorities to search both homes on the same day. Coleman never gave probation officers permission to search her home.

“The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,’” Benjamin wrote. “Although the Fourth Amendment enumerates persons, houses, papers, and effects, ‘the home is first among equals,’  and warrantless entry into and search of a home is the ‘chief evil against which the … Fourth Amendment [was] directed.’”

Appellate judges labeled the search of Coleman’s home unconstitutional for two reasons, “each rooted in the protection of Coleman’s Fourth Amendment rights as a third-party occupant,” Benjamin wrote.

“First, we conclude that the officers were not permitted to search Teal Drive merely based on Perez’ ownership of that property because Coleman resided there as a tenant,” the appellate opinion explained. “And second, we conclude that the officers were required to have probable cause to believe that Perez also resided at Teal Drive before initiating a probationary search of Coleman’s home, and they did not meet that standard here.”

Other federal appellate courts have tackled similar issues.

“We adopt the Eighth and Ninth Circuits’ reasoning, which balances the potential for violations of the constitutional rights of third parties and the government’s important interest in supervising parolees and probationers,” Benjamin wrote. “We hold that an officer must have probable cause to believe a dwelling is the residence of the court-supervised individual to initiate a warrantless search of a residence not known to be the court-supervised individual’s home.”

“This holding not only aligns with our sister circuits, but it is also directly supported by our precedent in Brinkley,” she explained, referencing the 4th Circuit’s 2020 decision in United States v. Brinkley. That case focused on arrest warrants.

“If the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to execute an arrest warrant at a third party’s home, then it should likewise require probable cause for executing a probationary search at a third party’s home,” Benjamin wrote. “In fact, the government’s interest is likely higher and more urgent in executing arrest warrants than in conducting probationary searches, where probation officers have routine contact with their supervisees.”

“Therefore, if probable cause is necessary when the government has a greater interest, it should also be required when that interest is less compelling,” Benjamin added. “Requiring less than probable cause would render ‘all private homes susceptible to search by dint of mere suspicion or uncorroborated information’ that a probationer lives there.”

Judges Nicole Berner and Barbara Milano Keenan joined Benjamin’s opinion. Former President Joe Biden appointed Benjamin and Berner. Former President Barack Obama appointed Keenan.

“Appeals Court throws out seizure of 25K from warrantless NC search” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.