Tenth Circuit US v. Paetsch 13-1169

4-8-15

   This is one of those "summaries" which is so long that you might want to just read the actual decision.  

   Paetsch robbed a bank with a handgun, while dressed in a beekeeper mask and dark clothing that covered him from head to toe.  The police had no suspect description, no vehicle description, and basically jack shit to go on.  Except that there was a GPS tracking device hidden in the money that Paetsch took.

   Dispatch was giving officers live updates of the location of the tracker, so they knew that it was probably in a car (since it was travelling at about 30-40 miles per hour).  About 15 minutes after the robbery, they knew that the tracker was in one of about 20 cars stopped in eastbound traffic, at a red light at a particular intersection.  With no immediate way to differentiate which of the cars held the suspect, the police blocked the intersection and detained them all.  Occupants of the car were ordered via PA system to put their hands up (or hold their hands out of the windows).

   Dispatch was only able to narrow the location of the tracker down to a 60 foot radius, so the cops were waiting for a handheld tracker that would allow them to the location down to one car.  It was supposed to get there in a half hour, but it wound up taking around three times that long because the deputy responsible for it dropped the ball (repeatedly.  First he forgot his office keys when he left his house, then his siren broke, and when he finally arrived he didn't remember how to work the device and had to call for someone who knew what he was doing).

   While they were waiting for the tracker, Paetsch kept looking around, shifting in his seat, and refused to keep his hands up (this was 29 minutes after the roadblock was set up).  He was removed from his car at gunpoint and handcuffed (so was the occupant of another car who was acting similarly suspicious).  Eventually everyone was taken out of their cars (this time just on general principle), and then a secondary sweep of the cars was done to make sure no one was hiding.  During that sweep, officers noticed a bank band in Paetsch's car.

   Paetsch was arrested about an hour and a half into the stop, after someone finally got the handheld tracking device to work and picked up a strong signal from his car.  Everyone else was still detained (for some reason) for another half hour, but then finally released.  Guns, a mask, and $20,000 were found in Paetsch's car.

   In court, Paetsch moved to suppress all the physical evidence and  some statements he made (which aren't described in the decision).  He argued that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment due to the lack of individualized reasonable suspicion.  The district court ruled against him (although it did suppress whatever his statements were, since he had asked for a lawyer).  Paetsch conditionally pled guilty, and then appealed.

   The Tenth circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court.  Paetsch was correct that at the inception of the stop there was no individualized reasonable suspicion, but the real touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, not necessarily reasonable suspicion.  The court analyzed the reasonableness of the stop by balancing the gravity of public concern and the degree to which the seizure advanced public interest against the severity of interference with individual liberty.  In other words, they asked how important it was (they were trying to catch an armed robber), how effective it was (it worked), and balanced that against the impact on individual liberty (and this is where it gets even more interesting (if you're into this sort of thing (but you are reading a blog about it, so you must be))).  For the first 29 minutes, the court found that the mass detention was reasonable.  After that, because Paetsch (and one of the other mass detainees) was acting suspicious by refusing to keep his hands up and by fidgeting in his seat and looking around, the police had a reason to detain Paetsch in particular.  From that point on, the reasonableness of the mass detention is not an issue in this case, because Paetsch's detention was reasonable and because 4th Amendment rights are personal rights which can't be vicariously asserted (i.e. Paetsch can't assert the other detainees' rights, only his own).  Therefore, the court decided not to decide whether the mass detention was still reasonable (although I'd suspect that it was, just not for as long as it eventually went on.  After Paetsch was eventually arrested, they still held on to everyone else for another half hour).

   Obviously, once the officers saw the money band in Paetsch's car and especially once the tracker had been located in his car there was probable cause to arrest Paetsch and search his car.  Paetsch's conviction stands.