Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Jarvis
Citation: 237 F. App'x 636Docket: No. 06-0589-cr
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; June 12, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Omar Jarvis appeals his conviction from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, where he was found guilty of multiple offenses, including possession of marijuana, possession of a handgun in furtherance of drug trafficking, possession of a firearm after a felony conviction, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Jarvis challenges the admissibility of certain evidence, arguing that it should have been suppressed due to violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. He contends that firearms seized during a search of 330 Emerson Street were not adequately described in the search warrant, constituting an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The government argues that Jarvis waived his right to appeal the search validity due to a lack of pre-trial motion, but the court finds no waiver as Jarvis did seek to suppress the evidence beforehand. Although the warrant lacked specific authorization to seize firearms, the court ruled that the seizure was justified under the "plain view" exception, as officers had probable cause to believe the firearms were connected to drug trafficking. Jarvis also claims that his written statement was improperly admitted since it followed an invocation of his right to silence. The court clarified that Jarvis was not interrogated until after his arrival at the police station, where he was briefly left alone before being questioned. The court ultimately concluded that the circumstances of the seizure of firearms and the admission of Jarvis's statements did not violate his constitutional rights. Jarvis was informed of his rights to remain silent and to an attorney prior to being questioned by law enforcement. During the questioning, he answered some questions but remained silent on others. After being left alone for about an hour while officers interviewed his family, Jarvis confessed to selling marijuana and possessing firearms, subsequently signing a written statement that included a notation of his Miranda rights. The court found that Jarvis's selective responses did not constitute an invocation of his right to remain silent, noting that intermittent silences do not negate a prior waiver of rights. There was no evidence suggesting his statements were involuntary or coerced, as he denied being under the influence of narcotics and showed no signs of intoxication. Jarvis also argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated when Agent Lewer testified about informants' out-of-court statements related to the search warrant application. However, the court referenced the Supreme Court case Crawford v. Washington, which states that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than to establish truth. Agent Lewer's testimony was elicited during cross-examination by Jarvis’s counsel and was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. As such, the court concluded that no Confrontation Clause violation occurred. The district court's judgment of conviction was affirmed.