United States of America (Plaintiff- Appellee) v. Keith Russell Homework Help

Who are the parties to the lawsuit, what is their dispute, and how did they get to the Supreme Court?…

Facts

The case is between the USA (represented by the office of the US Attorney) and Russell. The case revolves round the issue of voluntary consent to search. The arresting officer (Matt Bruch of the Port of Seattle Police) reported that he received a call and was informed of a black male who had purchased one way tickets to Alaska and from his behavior he was suspected to be a drug dealer. The officer approached Russell and identified himself and inquired whether he could search his bag and his persons and Russell agreed. The officer searched Russell from the ankles upwards using standard operating procedure for a frisk. When he reached for his groin area, he felt something hard and unnatural and the police officer arrested Russell. The search occurred outside his clothing and the officer never patted or reached inside Russell’s pants. When the case was heard before the district court it was found that it “it was reasonable for the officer to assume that all the areas where narcotics could be secreted could be touched” outside the clothing. The district court also found that Russell could have stopped the search by saying he did not want to speak to them or by turning away from them. Therefore the court denied him his motion to suppress evidence from the search.

Issue

The issue of consent as a recognized exception to the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures arises. This is further recognized in the case of Katz v. Unites States, 389 U.S. 347, 358 n.22 (1967). However, the burden of proof lies with the government to prove that consent was given “free and voluntarily” as was held in the case of United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9^th Cir,1997).
In deciding Russell’s case the judges identified five factors to consider when determining the voluntariness of the consent to search:
a). Whether the defendant was in custody
b). Whether the Arresting officers had their guns drawn
c). Whether Miranda warnings had been given
d). Whether the defendant was told that he had a right not to consent
e). Whether the defendant was told a search warrant could be obtained

Holding

The judges found that Russell was not in custody when the search occurred. AIDitionally, the officers never neither their guns drawn nor were they visible at any point when they encountered Russell. Miranda rights were found not to bear on the case because Russell was not under arrest. In regard to the fourth factor, Russell was not told that he could refuse to consent to the search; however, the court of appeal upheld the decision of the district court that the officers informed Russell that he was free to leave and this implied that he could refuse to consent to the search. Lastly the court of appeal upheld the district court’s decision that since Russell consented to the search there was no need to obtain a search warrant. The court of appeal aIDitionally held that the scope of the pat-down search was reasonable. The court was of the opinion that narcotics can be hiIDen in locations that can make their discovery difficult and this included the groin area.  Furthermore the search did not extend to the inside of his body nor was the search conducted by a member of the opposite sex. In asserting this position, the court relied on the decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968) where it was decided that the officer in a field search “…must feel with sensitive fingers every portion of the prisoner’s body…the groin area about the testicles…” the decision was upheld by the whole bench based on the legal arguments and precedent presented above and it upheld the decision of the district court to deny Russell a motion to suppress.

Referencess

United States of America (Plaintiff- Appellee) v. Keith Russell (Defendant- Appellant) No. 11-30030 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00264-MJP-1 OPINION

Place your order now………………….