USCA1 Opinion
June 30, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 93-1322
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
DAVID A. FORDE,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
David A. Forde on brief pro se.
______________
Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Esther Castro-Schmidt,
______________ ______________________
Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
_______________________
Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975),
__________ ________ ____
the Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt
judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to
extended detention following a warrantless arrest. In County
______
of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), the Court
____________ __________
established that "prompt" generally means within 48 hours of
the warrantless arrest. Absent extraordinary circumstances
(and intervening weekends do not qualify as such), a longer
delay presumptively violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. at
___
57. In Powell v. Nevada, 114 S. Ct. 1280 (1994), the Court
______ ______
held that McLaughlin applied retroactively to all cases
__________
pending on direct review or not yet final. The Court left
open the issue of the appropriate remedy for an unreasonable
delay in determining probable cause. Powell v. Nevada, 114
______ ______
S. Ct. at 1283-84.
David Forde, appellant before this court, contends that
the appropriate remedy, in his case, is suppression of
evidence. But, no evidence was obtained during the period
that Forde was detained after his arrest and prior to his
indictment. We affirm Forde's conviction.
I.
Forde arrived at the Luis Munoz Marin International
Airport in Puerto Rico on Friday, January 3, 1992, at
approximately 7:00 p.m. He was in transit from Barbados to
Boston, Massachusetts. United States Customs Inspector Jose
M. Martinez' attention was drawn to Forde because Forde was
"skinny" but was wearing a bulky sweater. Martinez testified
that he was in uniform when he first encountered Forde. He
further testified that Forde appeared surprised and nervous
when he saw that Martinez was staring at him and that Forde
tried to avoid him. At that moment, Martinez was called by
radio to his supervisor's office. Martinez pointed out Forde
to fellow Customs Inspector Hector Caban, who was in plain
clothes. Martinez told Caban of Forde's nervousness. Caban
waited until Forde retrieved his luggage. Then Caban
identified himself to Forde and asked him to go to a separate
inspection area.
There, Caban requested Forde's ticket and passport,
which Forde gave him, and asked Forde routine questions.
According to Caban, Forde appeared nervous, moving from side
to side, and averted his eyes from Caban, while answering
these questions. Caban inspected Forde's luggage and found
nothing suspicious. Caban then proceeded to conduct a
personal search of Forde. By this time, Martinez had
returned. During the patdown, Martinez noticed the thick
soles of Forde's shoes. He had Forde remove them and noticed
traces of glue in the sole area and nails in the inside of
the shoe. Martinez probed the soles with a screwdriver. The
white powder substance therein field-tested positive for
cocaine. After ripping off both soles, Martinez found four
-3-
packages of cocaine, totaling approximately 100 grams, and
one package of marihuana, weighing approximately 20 grams.
Forde was arrested and informed of his Miranda rights. Forde
_______
declined to waive these rights and no further questioning
occurred. Nor was any further evidence obtained.
At approximately 9:05 p.m., the Customs officials
notified the United States Attorney's office of Forde's
arrest. That office authorized prosecution. A Pretrial
Services officer contacted Magistrate Judge Schmidt-Monge at
approximately 1:30 a.m., Saturday, January 4, requesting
Forde's temporary commitment. Magistrate Schmidt-Monge
ordered the temporary commitment and instructed the arresting
agent to bring Forde for further proceedings on the next
working day, which was Tuesday, January 7. The district
court in Puerto Rico was closed on Monday, January 6, 1992,
in observance of Three Kings Day, a Commonwealth holiday.
Scheduling the initial appearance for the next working day
after an arrest was in accordance with the written procedure
in the district.1
____________________
1. The record does not disclose the contents of the request
for temporary commitment nor the basis for Magistrate Judge
Schmidt-Monge's approval. Neither Magistrate Judge
Castellanos, before whom Forde was later brought, see infra,
___ _____
text at 5, nor the district court considered what weight, if
any, Magistrate Schmidt-Monge's approval of Forde's temporary
commitment, approximately 6 hours after his arrest, played
in the McLaughlin calculus. The government has never argued
__________
that this approval constituted a probable cause determination
for McLaughlin purposes. As it appears that everyone
__________
heretofore - parties and judicial officers alike - has
-4-
On January 7, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Forde was
charged, by criminal complaint, with possession with intent
to distribute, importation, and possession on board an
aircraft, arriving in the United States, of approximately 100
grams of cocaine base and 20 grams of marihuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 952(a); and 955. At that time,
Forde appeared before Magistrate Judge Castellanos, who
raised concern about the failure to hold a probable cause
determination within 48 hours of Forde's arrest. Magistrate
Castellanos appointed counsel for Forde and scheduled a
hearing for later that afternoon.
At that hearing, counsel for Forde argued that
McLaughlin required that the evidence be suppressed and the
__________
complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The government
countered that the sole remedy dictated by McLaughlin, a
__________
class action civil rights case, was a suit for declaratory
and/or injunctive relief. The government also relied on its
compliance with the written procedure in the district.
____________________
assumed that the approval of a temporary commitment until the
next working day did not suffice as a probable cause
determination, we shall do likewise, without passing on the
issue. But cf. United States v. Adekunle, 2 F.3d 559, 562
_______ ______________ ________
(5th Cir. 1993) (concluding that the detention of a suspected
alimentary canal drug smuggler for more than four days prior
to his appearance before a magistrate was constitutional
because, within the first 48 hours of defendant's detention,
customs officials presented the matter to a magistrate, who
approved an order for an x-ray; opining that that order
demonstrated an implicit determination that there was
reasonable suspicion to warrant the continued detention).
-5-
Lastly, the government pointed out that no statements or
evidence had been obtained from Forde after his arrest and
during the intervening detention period. Magistrate
Castellanos ruled that the complaint should be dismissed
without prejudice, but he stayed his decision to allow the
government to seek review of that determination in the
district court. Forde remained incarcerated.
On January 8, the government sought review of the
dismissal ruling in the district court. Also on January 8, a
grand jury issued a five count indictment against Forde,
essentially replicating the charges brought in the complaint.
Forde was arraigned on the indictment on January 9 and he
continued to be detained without bail.
On January 10, the district court held a hearing on the
government's appeal of Magistrate Castellanos' decision
dismissing the complaint. On January 23, the district court
ruled that, in light of the intervening indictment, the issue
whether McLaughlin required the dismissal of the complaint
__________
was moot.2
____________________
2. We question, but need not resolve, the correctness of the
district court's mootness determination. No doubt the later-
obtained indictment superseded the complaint and, in that
sense, mooted the question whether to dismiss that complaint.
But, we note that Forde had argued that he was entitled to
dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Presumably, he
______________
was contending that the failure to provide him a probable
cause determination within 48 hours of his arrest meant that
he could not be prosecuted at all, whether by complaint or
indictment.
-6-
On the day before the commencement of trial, Forde's
counsel moved to suppress the cocaine and marihuana and to
dismiss the indictment with prejudice, again arguing that
McLaughlin instructs that the delay in Forde's initial
__________
appearance before a magistrate violated the Fourth Amendment.
After a hearing, the court denied that motion. It ruled that
the search was lawful and, therefore, the controlled
substances were admissible. As for the request to dismiss
the indictment, the court ruled that that issue had been
resolved by its prior ruling of mootness.3
After a four-day jury trial, Forde was convicted on all
five counts. He was sentenced to a term of 121 months on
each of the three cocaine charges and to a term of 60 months
on each of the two marihuana charges, all terms to be served
concurrently with each other. He was also sentenced to
____________________
Beyond question, an indictment constitutes a
determination of probable cause. The mere fact that an
indictment was eventually obtained, however, does not resolve
whether a defendant is entitled to relief, and, if so, the
contours of that relief, for the failure to provide him with
a determination of probable cause within the first 48 hours
of his detention. See Arnold v. City of Chicago, 776 F.
___ ______ ________________
Supp. 1259, 1263 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (reciting that a finding of
probable cause for arrest does not estop an extended
detention claim). Indeed, counsel for Forde made this
contention in his subsequent motion to dismiss the
indictment, when he argued that the indictment obtained five
days after his arrest did not "cure" the prior extended
detention.
3. But see note 2, supra.
_____
-7-
concurrent five and three year terms of supervised release.
Forde has appealed and elected to proceed pro se.4
II.
It is conceded in this case that Forde was arrested
without a warrant and he was detained for more than 48 hours
prior to a judicial determination of probable cause.
According to McLaughlin, once the 48-hour mark was passed, it
__________
is the government's burden to demonstrate that the delay was
reasonable due to a bona fide emergency or other
extraordinary circumstance. County of Riverside v.
_______________________
McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 57. The government has offered no
__________
justification, other than the occurrence of the intervening
holiday weekend, and McLaughlin, itself, rejects that
__________
justification. See id.
___ ___
____________________
4. During the course of pretrial proceedings, counsel for
Forde moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, on the
ground that the delay prior to Forde's appearance before the
magistrate violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a). That rule states,
in pertinent part, that "any person making an arrest without
a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary
delay before the nearest available federal magistrate judge."
The court denied the motion. Forde has not repeated the
contention on appeal. In any event, we have previously
determined that Rule 5(a) does not require suppression of
evidence lawfully obtained prior to any period of unnecessary
delay. United States v. Elkins, 774 F.2d 530, 534 (1st Cir.
_____________ ______
1985). This caselaw supports the result in this case.
Prior to trial, Forde also filed a pro se motion to
dismiss the indictment and a pro se petition for habeas
corpus, each citing McLaughlin. The record does not evidence
__________
any express ruling by the district court on either filing.
In light of our disposition of this appeal, that lacuna is of
no matter.
-8-
We are aware that the Court has left open the issue of
the appropriate remedy for a McLaughlin violation. Powell v.
__________ ______
Nevada, 114 S. Ct. at 1283-84. We are confident of the
______
correct result in this case, nonetheless. Even conceding the
unlawfulness of Forde's extended detention prior to the
probable cause determination, it does not follow that, as
Forde would have it, the evidence of the controlled
substances must be suppressed.5 In this case, the
contraband was obtained from a lawful search.6 And, that
____________________
5. Although Forde has limited his appellate argument to
advocating suppression, we recognize that, in effect, he is
seeking the dismissal of his indictment. Even granting this
interpretative largess to Forde's pro se filing, we would
nonetheless affirm. "Once a defendant has been tried and
convicted, delay in bringing him before a magistrate is not
reason to set aside the conviction unless the defendant can
show that he was prejudiced by the delay." United States v.
_____________
Perez-Bustamante, 963 F.2d 48, 52 (5th Cir.) (citations
________________
omitted) (declining to suppress a voluntary confession
obtained 60 hours after an arrest and two days prior to
presentment to a magistrate where there was no evidence that
the delay was for the purpose of interrogation or that the
interrogation was lengthy, hostile, or coercive), cert.
_____
denied, 113 S. Ct. 663 (1992); see also United States v.
______ _________ ______________
Jernigan, 582 F.2d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir.) (declining to vacate
________
a conviction and dismiss an indictment despite evidence that
the DEA agent deliberately delayed arresting the defendant
until the evening preceding a long holiday weekend; no
statements were made by defendant during that period), cert.
_____
denied, 439 U.S. 991 (1978).
______
6. Although Forde contends, in a passing reference, that the
search was unlawful, that is clearly not so. "It is well
established that routine border inspections do not violate
the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable
searches even when conducted without a warrant or probable
cause." United States v. Uricoechea-Casallas, 946 F.2d 162,
_____________ ___________________
164 (1st Cir. 1991). "Under the 'no suspicion' standard
applicable to routine border searches, a customs officer may
search an individual based on 'subjective suspicion alone, or
-9-
search was not conducted during any period of unlawful
detention. Simply put, the evidence was not the product of
any unlawful detention. That, at some later point, the
length of his detention violated the Fourth Amendment does
not retroactively invalidate the prior lawful search or taint
its results. See United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 471
___ _____________ _____
(1980) ("In the typical 'fruit of the poisonous tree' case,
... the challenged evidence was acquired by the police after
_____
some initial Fourth Amendment violation.") (Emphasis in the
original).
We understand Forde's instinctive belief that there must
be a remedy for the Fourth Amendment violation which occurred
in this case. However, "[t]here is no presumption or general
rule that for every duty imposed upon the court or the
____________________
even on random basis.'" Id. at 166 (citations omitted). The
___
patdown search of Forde, including the request that he remove
his shoes constituted a routine border search. See, e.g.,
__________
United States v. Grotke, 702 F.2d 49, 52 (2d Cir. 1983)
______________ ______
(search of cowboy boots was minimally intrusive and did not
require reasonable suspicion); United States v. Fitzgibbon,
_____________ __________
576 F.2d 279, 284 (10th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 439 U.S.
____________
910 (1978). The thick soles, the traces of glue, and the
nails in the inside of the shoes justified the probing and
field test. The contraband retrieved from the soles was
lawfully obtained.
After the drugs were found, Forde was strip-searched.
Such a non-routine search requires reasonable suspicion,
i.e., "some objective, articulable facts that justify the
intrusion as to the particular person and place searched."
United States v. Uricoechea-Casallas, 946 F.2d at 166
______________ ___________________
(citations omitted). Forde complains that the strip search
was done without any reasonable suspicion. The discovery of
the contraband in Forde's shoes provided the required
reasonable suspicion. As noted, supra at 4, no further
_____
contraband was discovered.
-10-
Government and its prosecutors there must exist some
corollary punitive sanction for departures or omissions, even
if negligent." United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S.
_____________ ________________
711, 717 (1990) (holding that release is not an appropriate
remedy for a defendant, otherwise properly detained, when the
government fails to comply with the Bail Reform Act's
directive to hold a detention hearing upon the defendant's
first appearance). We do not commend the violation of the
McLaughlin rule that occurred in this case. Like the Court,
__________
we leave to another day what remedy, if any, does exist for a
McLaughlin violation. In this case, the remedy that Forde
__________
propounds, suppression of evidence lawfully obtained prior to
any unlawfully-extended detention, is clearly unwarranted.
Affirmed.
_________
-11-
