-
USCA1 Opinion
United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 93-1417
UNITED STATES,
Appellant,
v.
SALVATORE MANCINI,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
__________________________
____________________
Before
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges,
______________
and Fuste,* District Judge.
______________
____________________
Craig N. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Edwin
_______________ _____
J. Gale, United States Attorney, Ira Belkin, Assistant United States
________ ___________
Attorney, and Margaret E. Curran, Assistant United States Attorney,
___________________
were on brief for appellant.
John A. MacFadyen, with whom Richard M. Egbert and Peter DiBiase,
_________________ _________________ ______________
were on brief for appellee.
____________________
November 4, 1993
____________________
_____________________
*Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
STAHL, Circuit Judge. In this criminal appeal, we
_____________
must decide whether the Mayor of North Providence, Rhode
Island, defendant Salvatore Mancini ("Mancini"), has
standing1 to challenge a search of the town's archive attic
and subsequent seizure of the Mayor's 1987 appointment
calendar. The district court ruled in Mancini's favor.2
The government timely filed this interlocutory appeal.3 We
affirm the district court's ruling.
I.
I.
__
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
__________________
We recount only those facts relevant to resolving
the issue on appeal. On November 20, 1992, a grand jury
indicted Mancini on one count of attempted extortion under
color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951.
____________________
1. The inquiry turns, in this case, on whether the defendant
demonstrated a legitimate expectation of privacy, see Rakas
___ _____
v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978), and we use the term
________
`standing' in the present context as shorthand for that
inquiry. United States v. Sanchez, 943 F.2d 110, 113 n.1
_____________ _______
(1st Cir. 1991).
2. After finding that Mancini had standing to contest the
search and seizure, the district court went on to grant
Mancini's motion to suppress the appointment calendar on the
ground that the affidavit used to acquire the search warrant
omitted certain facts which, if disclosed to the Magistrate,
would have demonstrated a lack of probable cause. On appeal,
the government does not contest this finding. Therefore, the
only issue before us is the standing question.
3. In relevant part, 18 U.S.C. 3731 provides: "An appeal
by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a
decision or order of the district court suppressing or
excluding evidence . . . ."
-2-
2
According to the indictment, in November 1987, Mancini
accepted a $2,000 payment from real estate developers in
exchange for the issuance of certain certificates of
occupancy for residential apartments owned by the developers.
Prior to the indictment, in the course of
investigating the allegations against Mancini, the FBI
attempted to obtain the relevant certificates of occupancy.
At approximately 4:30 p.m. on October 29, 1992, two FBI
agents, Timothy O'Keefe and Charles Prunier, went to the
North Providence Town Hall to interview the town's building
inspector, Albert DiPetrillo, and to serve him with grand
jury subpoenas calling for his testimony and for the
production of the eleven allegedly illegal certificates of
occupancy. The subpoenas required production of the
certificates by 9:30 the following morning.
DiPetrillo told the agents that Town Hall records
were kept in a room known as the archive attic. Both the
maintenance and personnel departments had keys to the attic.
At DiPetrillo's direction, another town employee, Robert
Hennessey, obtained the keys to the attic from a maintenance
worker and accompanied the two agents through two locked
doors and into the attic. The attic, which is above and runs
the length of the Town Hall, contained boxes of records and
miscellaneous equipment, none of which appeared to the agents
to be organized in any particular manner.
-3-
3
When the three men first entered the attic,
Hennessey suggested to the agents that they might find the
certificates in boxes of Building Department records located
near the door through which they had just passed. An initial
examination of those boxes did not uncover the certificates.
Hennessey then informed the agents that there were two other
rooms in the attic containing town records. After a cursory
examination of the other rooms indicated that only records
from before 1940 were present, the three men returned to the
room they had entered first. The agents again began looking
for the certificates in the boxes located in this room.
According to Hennessey's testimony at the suppression
hearing, he directed the agents to a particular stack of
boxes. Agent Prunier, however, "wandered off" in another
direction. At some point, Prunier came across a box labelled
"Mayor's Appointment Books." The flaps on the box were
turned down to cover the top of the box, but they were not
interlocked. Prunier lifted the flaps and saw that the box
did, in fact, contain appointment books, including a book for
1987.4 Prunier browsed through the 1987 book and replaced
it in the box. Meanwhile, Agent O'Keefe located the sought-
after certificates of occupancy in one of the boxes in the
____________________
4. The appointment book here at issue is a rather typical
red-covered office calendar, with one page devoted to each
day of 1987. The hard cover reads "Appointments," with
"1987" appearing underneath. The inside front cover is
denoted "1987 Half Hourly Standard Appointment Diary."
-4-
4
area that Hennessey had originally suggested. This search
lasted approximately two hours.
On November 16, 1992, the FBI applied for a warrant
to search the archive attic and seize the 1987 appointment
calendar. A Magistrate Judge signed the warrant, and it was
executed the same day. The calendar was retrieved.
According to the government, the calendar is significant
because of an entry made on November 24, 1987, a few days
before the alleged illegal payoff and one day before the
certificates were issued. That entry indicates that Mancini
had a noon appointment with Art Aloisio, who, according to
Kenneth Stoll, arranged the meeting where Stoll allegedly
made the payoff to the Mayor.5
Prior to trial, Mancini moved to suppress the
appointment calendar because 1) the agents' initial discovery
of the calendar was the result of a warrantless, illegal
search, and 2) the later search, executed pursuant to a
warrant, was both the fruit of the first, illegal search and
____________________
5. The calendar entry took on greater importance in the face
of Stoll's credibility problems. During the suppression
hearing, F.B.I. Agent Joyce, who signed the search warrant
affidavit, conceded that Stoll, who was to be a prosecution
witness, had lied on several occasions to the F.B.I. and
United States Attorney's office. In fact, the government had
rescinded a non-prosecution agreement it had previously
reached with Stoll because it believed that Stoll had
breached his obligation to speak truthfully. None of Stoll's
credibility problems were divulged to the Magistrate, leading
to the portion of the district court's suppression order that
is not here appealed.
-5-
5
the product of a misleading affidavit. Following a
suppression hearing,6 the district court first found that
Mancini had standing to contest the search and seizure.
Addressing the merits, the court then rejected Mancini's
claim that the agents' conduct in discovering the calendar
was illegal. The court concluded, however, that the
subsequent search warrant should never have been issued due
to the government's failure to disclose the negative
information concerning Stoll. Therefore, the court granted
the motion to suppress. As noted earlier, the government
only challenges the court's standing determination.
II.
II.
___
STANDARD OF REVIEW
STANDARD OF REVIEW
__________________
In reviewing the district court's suppression
order, we uphold findings of fact, including mixed fact/law
findings, unless they are clearly erroneous. See United
___ ______
States v. Carty, 993 F.2d 1005, 1008 (1st Cir. 1993) (factual
______ _____
____________________
6. At the suppression hearing, Prunier, Joyce, and Mayoral
Chief of Staff Leo J. Perrotta were called to testify by the
government. Hennessey was the only witness called by the
defense. Mancini did not testify, but submitted an affidavit
stating that in 1987 he kept a daily calendar diary which was
"maintained as a personal rather than a public document,"
that the diary was "kept in a closed box marked Mayor's
Appointment Books" located in the locked archive room, and
that he instructed his Chief of Staff that "no one was to
have access to any of my boxes, including the box containing
the calendars, without permission." Mancini further stated
that "[a]t all times, I believed that my boxes, including the
one containing the calendars, were my private property, were
under my control, and were to be left alone by all persons,
including town personnel."
-6-
6
findings); United States v. Rodriguez-Morales, 929 F.2d 780,
_____________ _________________
783 (1st Cir. 1991)
(mixed findings), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 868 (1992). We
_____ ______
review conclusions of law de novo. Carty, 993 F.2d at 1008.
__ ____ _____
The legal standard used by the district court is also subject
to plenary review. Sanchez, 943 F.2d at 112.
_______
It is well settled that a defendant who fails to
demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area
searched or the item seized will not have "standing" to claim
that an illegal search or seizure occurred. Rakas, 439 U.S.
_____
at 138-48; Sanchez, 943 F.2d at 112-13. In order to make such
_______
a demonstration, the defendant must show both a subjective
expectation of privacy and that society accepts that
expectation as objectively reasonable. California v.
__________
Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39 (1988); Katz v. United States, 389
_________ ____ _____________
U.S. 347, 361 (1967)(Harlan, J. concurring). The burden of
proving a reasonable expectation of privacy lies with the
defendant. Sanchez, 943 F.2d at 113. The defendant must
_______
demonstrate a privacy expectation in both the item seized and
the place searched. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83,
______________ ________
93 (1980) ("[W]e must . . . engage in a conscientious effort
to apply the Fourth Amendment by asking not merely whether
the defendant had a possessory interest in the items seized,
but whether he had an expectation of privacy in the area
searched.")(internal quotations omitted); United States v.
_____________
-7-
7
Aguirre, 839 F.2d 854, 856 (1st Cir. 1988)("Before embarking
_______
upon the merits of a suppression challenge, a criminal
defendant must show that he had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the area searched and in relation to the items
seized.").
III.
III.
____
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________
In determining that Mancini had standing to contest
the search, the district court first ruled that the
appointment book was not a public record. United States v.
_____________
Mancini, No. 92-117B, slip op. at 4 (D.R.I. April 12, 1993).
_______
Then, the court concluded that the act of placing the book
into a box "does not remove the document from the mayor's
files." Id. Finally, the court stated that it is not
__
"significant that the record was not found in the physical
confines of the Mayor's office. It was where it could
expected [sic] to be, a 1987 document, in the archives." Id.
___
at 4-5. On this appeal, the government argues that the
district court erroneously found that the calendar was a non-
public document, and further contends that Mancini did not,
and could not, demonstrate a privacy expectation in the
archive attic. We address the two issues in turn.
A. The Mayor's Appointment Calendar
A. The Mayor's Appointment Calendar
____________________________________
In finding that Mancini's appointment calendar is a
"non-public record," the district court analogized the
-8-
8
calendar to the personal effects located in the desk and file
cabinets of a public employee in O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S.
________ ______
709 (1987).
In Ortega, the Supreme Court ruled that the
______
defendant, Dr. Ortega had a reasonable expectation of privacy
in his desk and file cabinets, both of which were located in
his office. Id. at 718.7 The Court found significant the
___
personal nature of the items in the desk and file cabinets,
"which included personal correspondence, medical files,
correspondence from private patients unconnected to the
Hospital, personal financial records, teaching aids and
notes, and personal gifts and mementos." Id. The papers
___
were not exclusively private, however, as was demonstrated by
the testimony of one of the investigators who tried to
separate the personal items from the public documents. Id.
___
at 713 ("`Trying to sort State from non-State, it was too
much to do, so I gave it up and boxed it up.'").
Like the papers contained in Dr. Ortega's files and
desk, the Mayor's personal and public calendar entries are
intermingled. In many instances, it is impossible to
classify an appointment as one or the other. Names of public
officials alone, jotted down next to a preprinted hour of the
____________________
7. Before addressing the specifics of Dr. Ortega's case, the
Court first rejected the Solicitor General's position that
public employees can never have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in their place of work. Ortega, 480 U.S. at 717.
______
The government here makes no such claim.
-9-
9
day, do not reveal the context of the intended meeting.
Thus, we are not persuaded by the government's argument that
we should resolve this issue mathematically, by calculating
and comparing the number of facially public versus non-public
appointments contained in the calendar. Even if the ratio
could be divined, we believe the proper inquiry to be one of
composite nature, not number. A perusal of the calendar
reveals that many of the Mayor's entries were intended to
remind him of such clearly personal activities as
christenings, bachelor dinners, doctor appointments and
weddings; some even concern his personal plans for holidays.
We are persuaded that these entries make the overall nature
______
of the calendar sufficiently non-public to justify a
legitimate expectation of privacy.
Moreover, although Mancini's secretaries had access
to the appointment calendar,8 shared access to a document
does not prevent one from claiming Fourth Amendment
protection in that document. See Mancusi v. DeForte, 392
___ _______ _______
U.S. 364, 369 (1968)(exclusive access to an office or to
documents contained within an office is not a prerequisite to
claiming Fourth Amendment protection).
____________________
8. By all accounts, Mancini's appointment calendar is
typical of the kind of calendar maintained by business and
professional people. The daily log appeared to be maintained
by secretaries who worked for the Mayor, the same way
business calendars are often maintained by personal
assistants.
-10-
10
B. The Attic Archive Room in City Hall
B. The Attic Archive Room in City Hall
_______________________________________
Accepting the district court's conclusion that the
appointment book had a sufficiently personal character to
justify Fourth Amendment protection, the question remains
whether Mancini had a reasonable expectation of privacy in
the place searched. The district court said that the
appointment book was "not remove[d]...from the mayor's
files," but rather was found where a 1987 file could be
"expected to be [found], in the archives." We do not,
however, think this is conclusive. As we have stated:
The most intimate of documents, if
left strewn about in the most public
of places, would surely not [give
rise to an expectation of privacy].
That the items seized were
appellant's personal effects was a
mark in his favor--but without
competent evidence to show that they
were left in a place and under
circumstances which could (and did)
give rise to an expectation of
privacy, the mark fell far short.
United States v. Aguirre, 839 F.2d 854, 857 (1st Cir. 1988)
_____________ _______
(footnote omitted). Accordingly, we turn our attention to
the question of Mancini's privacy interest in a box in the
archive attic.
On appeal, both sides rely on cases involving
searches of business premises.9 In the government's view,
____________________
9. We agree, for purposes of this appeal, that cases
involving business premises searches are sufficiently
analogous to provide guidance.
-11-
11
these cases establish that an employee can have an
expectation of privacy only in his or her own work area. Not
surprisingly, Mancini takes the opposite view, i.e., that
case law establishes "beyond peradventure" that an employee's
expectation of privacy is not limited to his own work area.
The truth lies somewhere in between.
It is undisputed that, under certain circumstances,
a corporate officer or employee may assert a reasonable
expectation of privacy in his/her corporate offices even if
shared with others, and may have standing with respect to
searches of corporate premises and records. See, e.g.,
___ ____
Mancusi 392 U.S. at 369 ("It has long been settled that one
_______
has standing to object to a search of his office as well as
his home."). In addition, "[g]iven the great variety of work
environments in the public sector, the question whether an
employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be
addressed on a case-by-case basis." Ortega, 480 U.S. at 718.
______
We consider the following factors to be especially
relevant to the standing determination:
"ownership, possession and/or control;
historical use of the property searched
or the thing seized; ability to regulate
access; the totality of the surrounding
circumstances; the existence or
nonexistence of a subjective anticipation
of privacy; and the objective
reasonableness of such an expectancy
under the facts of a given case."
-12-
12
See Sanchez, 943 F.2d at 113 (quoting United States v.
___ _______ _____________
Aguirre, 839 F.2d 854, 856-57 (1st Cir. 1988)). We also take
_______
notice of the position of authority held by the party
asserting his/her fourth amendment rights. United States v.
_____________
Brien, 617 F.2d 299, 306 (1st Cir. 1980).
_____
In United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589, 601
_____________ ___________
(1st Cir. 1985), we reversed a district court decision which
denied two individual defendants standing to contest the
search of a warehouse which was owned by a corporation and
used to store marijuana before transport. We rejected the
district court's reasoning that the defendants lacked
standing because they neither owned the warehouse nor used
any portion of it for personal matters. Id. at 601.
___
Instead, we noted that the defendants, along with two others,
furnished the money to buy the warehouse in the name of a
corporation in which they held all the stock. This, we
concluded, gave them a proprietary interest in the building.
Id. Of more importance, however, was the fact that only the
___
defendants and one of their coconspirators had keys to the
warehouse, that the warehouse was kept locked, that very few
people had access to it, and that the defendants did, in
fact, keep some personal property there. Id. We therefore
___
determined that the defendants had standing to contest the
warehouse search. Id.
___
-13-
13
In United States v. Thornley, 707 F.2d 622, 624-25
_____________ ________
(1st Cir. 1983), on the other hand, we upheld the district
court's rejection of a standing claim made by a defendant who
had removed incriminating documents from his business and had
stored them in the basement of a three-tenant apartment
building owned by a close friend. Id. at 624-25. We found
___
that several factors militated against defendant having an
objective expectation of privacy, including the facts that
the storage area was a common area that was not kept locked
and that access was possible through an old hole in a
sidewall. Id. at 624. Also, we noted that the area had been
___
used by a tenant long before defendant's use of it, and that
the tenant was never told that her use was prohibited. Id.
___
at 624-25. Finally, we observed that the basement was open
not only to tenants, but to children who used it as a play
area. Id. at 625. These facts, combined with the fact that
___
the defendant was not a tenant of the building and lacked any
evidence to support his expectation of privacy claim,
compelled us to conclude that the defendant "could not
insulate himself against the discovery of incriminating
material by . . . hiding it in a place . . . in which [he]
had no legal interest or even access rights." Id.
___
(quotations omitted).
Finally, in Brien, we affirmed the district court's
_____
finding of an expectation of privacy on the part of corporate
-14-
14
employees in business records seized from areas of the
corporate office other than their own work stations. Brien,
_____
617 F.2d at 306. In so doing, we approved the district
court's focus on the following factors: 1) each defendant's
position in the firm; 2) his ownership interest; 3) his
responsibilities; 4) his power to exclude others from the
area; 5) whether he worked in the area; and 6) his presence
at the time of the search. Id. We also found it relevant
___
that the office in question was noteworthy for its extreme
security measures. Id. at n.9.10
___
Although we are clearly grappling with matters of
degree, the facts here, in light of the foregoing precedents,
persuade us that the Mayor has demonstrated an objectively
reasonable expectation of privacy in the archive attic.
Mancini was mayor of the city of North Providence for
nineteen years, throughout which he maintained his office in
the same building. The archive attic, as noted previously,
was upstairs in the very building in which Mancini worked
throughout his tenure in political office. Moreover, the
record shows that Mancini took steps to assure that no one
____________________
10. Some standing decisions turn on the applicability of
certain business regulations that may reduce one's reasonable
expectation of privacy. See, e.g. United States v. Leary,
___ ____ _____________ _____
846 F.2d 592, 596-98 (10th Cir. 1988) (exporting); United
______
States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649-51 (2d Cir. 1990)
______ ______
(banking), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824 (1990). No such
_____ ______
regulations apply to this case.
-15-
15
would have access to his files without his prior
authorization.11 Finally, we note that Mancini's
belongings were clearly labeled and were segregated from
other items in the secured archive attic.
Accordingly, Mancini could have expected that only
members of the maintenance or personnel staff, who had
instructions not to disturb the Mayor's boxes, could enter
the attic, and that his personal records would not be touched
except with his permission or that of his Chief of Staff.
Cf. Mancusi, 392 U.S. at 369. In our opinion, Mancini's
___ _______
actions demonstrate an expectation of privacy in the archive
attic which we find to be objectively reasonable.
IV.
IV.
___
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
__________
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Mancini has
standing to challenge the search and seizure here at issue.
Accordingly, the ruling of the district court is affirmed.
affirmed
________
____________________
11. In addition to Mancini's sworn statement that he
specifically "instructed my Chief of Staff that no one was to
have access to any of my boxes, including the box containing
the calendars, without permission," Robert Hennessey, a city
employee, testified as follows:
Q. Did you have permission to go into this box?
A. No.
Q. Did you have permission to go into any of the
Mayor's property in the archives?
A. No.
Q. Who, if you know, was the only person authorized to
permit entry into those boxes?
A. I would say the Mayor or Leo Perrotta [the Mayor's
Chief of Staff].
-16-
16
Document Info
Docket Number： 93-1417
Filed Date： 11/4/1993
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015