United States v. Folk: Panel Upholds Seizure of Hunting Weapons in Search for Drugs

United States v. Folk, No. 12-15126, from SDFla

Circuit Judge Tjoflat, Circuit Judge Wilson, and District Judge Proctor (N.D. Al)

Summary: The defendant, a previously convicted felon, was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (which provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for a person convicted of an offense under § 922 who has three prior convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense) to 180 months imprisonment.

First, the defendant challenged the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home pursuant to a warrant.  He asserted that the seizure was not authorized under the scope of the warrant or the plain view doctrine.  The warrant did not specifically authorize the seizure of firearms and there was nothing inherently illegal about the firearms to warrant their seizure under the plain view doctrine.

The panel first addressed the argument regarding the scope of the warrant, noting that typically firearms are so connected to the sale of narcotics that their seizure is implicitly authorized by a warrant to search for narcotics. Here, the panel intimated some concern, however, because the weapons seized were for hunting, and the officers executing the warrant indicated that they did not have any suspicion that these weapons were actually used in drug transactions.

Nevertheless, the panel rejected the challenge to the seizure because it found that the weapons could be seized under the plain view doctrine. The weapons were lawfully observed during the protective sweep and during the search for narcotics pursuant to the warrant.  And, the facts available to the officers executing the warrant indicated that it was reasonable to believe that the weapons were contraband since they were in the possession of a convicted felon.

 

Second, the defendant argued that the preemptory strike of a black juror violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The panel found that the striking of two out of three black veniremembers did not demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, particularly because the defendant conceded that there were clear reasons for striking one of them. Further, the prosecution offered a nondiscriminatory and sincere reason for striking the black juror, namely that the prosecutor had trouble hearing the juror’s answers and that the juror had a friend who was on multiple years’ probation for a drug offense.

Third, and lastly, the panel rejected the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his conviction.

The defendant’s convictions were affirmed.