UNITED STATES V. HARTWELL 436 F.3d 174 (3rd Cir. 2006) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. HARTWELL

436 F.3d 174 (3rd Cir. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Hartwell (D) sought review of a judgment, which held that an airport search of D that resulted in the confiscation of crack cocaine from his pocket did not offend the Fourth Amendment.

FACTS: D arrived at the Philadelphia International Airport intending to catch a flight to Phoenix. D placed his hand luggage on a conveyor belt to be x-rayed, and approached the metal detector. D set off the magnetometer when he walked through. D was told to remove all items from his pockets and try again. D removed several items -- including a large quantity of cash -- from his pocket, and passed through again. Carlos Padua took D aside after he passed through the metal detector a second time. Padua used a handheld wand-like magnetometer to discover what set off the metal detector. The wand revealed a solid object in D's pants pocket. D claims that he was escorted to a private screening room near the checkpoint, where he refused Padua's repeated requests to reveal the contents of his pocket. Frustrated by D's unresponsiveness, Padua eventually reached into D's pocket and pulled out a package of drugs. He immediately called the Philadelphia police, who searched and found two additional packages of drugs and about $3,000 in cash, and promptly arrested him. P claims that neither Padua nor the police officer ever reached into D's pocket without his consent. After requesting private screening, D refused several requests to empty his pocket, nervously backed away from Agent Padua while he was being questioned, and suddenly dropped his pants. Padua called for backup. A police officer arrived and asked D to remove any items from his pocket, and D complied by handing over one package of drugs. He then feigned falling to the floor and dropped a second package of drugs. The court ruled that whether D voluntarily produced the drugs or whether defendant was frisked,' the Court stated, 'the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner