Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 9, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Andrew Milton Flatter, a postal service employee, was suspected of mail theft after a report from the Veterans' Administration indicated that fourteen packages containing class II medications had gone missing. Postal inspectors investigated and focused on Flatter due to his presence on dates when the loss occurred. They placed six decoy packages in Bay 32, where Flatter worked, making them visible to him and monitored by video. Flatter's suspicious behavior included handling the mail in the crab pots and removing a white object from one, after which he moved out of the inspectors' view. When inspectors later attempted to retrieve the decoy packages, they found only five, which had been relocated from their original positions. Flatter was subjected to a Terry stop, during which officers conducted a pat-down search without evidence that he was armed, leading to the seizure of incriminating evidence. The district court upheld the search as lawful, resulting in Flatter's conviction and probation sentence. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that the officers lacked justification for the search, reversing the district court's ruling and vacating Flatter's conviction.
Inspectors Schaap and Sheppard questioned Flatter regarding a missing decoy envelope, finding his responses evasive. They invited him to the postal inspectors' office for further questioning, allowing him to have a union representative present. Upon arrival, they informed Flatter he was not under arrest and free to leave, but they conducted a pat-down for weapons due to concerns about the potential for confrontation in a small room. During the search, Inspector Sheppard noticed a plastic object protruding from Flatter's rear pocket, which he suspected was the missing decoy package. Upon removing it, it was confirmed to be the decoy.
Flatter was indicted for mail theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1709 and moved to suppress the envelope as evidence, claiming a Fourth Amendment violation, along with a motion to depose postal inspector witnesses. Both motions were denied, leading to his conviction and a sentence of three years' probation plus a $100 special penalty assessment. Flatter appealed the denial of his pre-trial motions and specific evidentiary rulings from the trial.
The review of a motion to suppress is conducted de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. The relevant legal standard is derived from Terry v. Ohio, which establishes that police may conduct a limited search for weapons if they have a reasonable belief the individual is armed and dangerous. The initial frisk in Flatter's case lacked the requisite reasonable belief necessary to justify the search for weapons.
Inspector Sheppard testified that he conducted a pat down search of Flatter for weapons primarily due to concerns for officer safety, given the small size of the interrogation room and the potential for confrontational questioning. Sheppard acknowledged he had no evidence that Flatter was actually armed, despite his belief that it was prudent to conduct the search. The district court upheld the search, but the analysis highlighted that while a reasonable suspicion of being armed can stem from various factors—such as visible bulges in clothing or sudden movements—none were present in Flatter's case. The officers did not observe any bulges, Flatter exhibited no threatening behavior, and there was no indication he had a history of violence. Additionally, mail theft is not typically associated with firearms, further diminishing any rationale for the search. Consequently, the court concluded that the officers lacked sufficient grounds to suspect Flatter was armed, ruling that the pat down violated the Fourth Amendment.
The government argued that officers would have discovered an envelope in Flatter's pocket without a frisk, citing proximity and visibility. However, the record indicates that Flatter's vest concealed his waistline, making the envelope undetectable until the vest was lifted during the search. Officers had previously interacted with Flatter without noticing the envelope. Consequently, the evidence cannot be admitted under the inevitable discovery doctrine. The decoy envelope, found as a result of the unlawful search, is deemed inadmissible as it is considered fruit of the poisonous tree. The court concluded that the postal inspector violated the Fourth Amendment by conducting the frisk without reasonable suspicion of Flatter being armed and dangerous. As a result, the district court's judgment is reversed, Flatter's conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded for a new trial. No other claims presented by Flatter were considered due to the ruling on the pat-down search's unlawfulness.
