[00:00:04] Speaker 02: The court calls U.S. [00:00:06] Speaker 02: v. Jackson. [00:00:07] Speaker 02: This is 242042 and we'll hear from Mr. Myers. [00:00:17] Speaker 05: May it please the court, Mr. Cordova. [00:00:20] Speaker 05: I'm Joel Myers and I represent Glenn Jackson. [00:00:24] Speaker 05: I'd like to reserve about three minutes for rebuttal if necessary. [00:00:28] Speaker 05: I'm asking the court to reverse the district court's ruling denying suppression for three reasons. [00:00:34] Speaker 05: First, I believe the counter was not a consensual encounter between Mr. Jackson and Agent Perry. [00:00:40] Speaker 05: Second, I do not believe there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Jackson after that brief encounter. [00:00:45] Speaker 05: And finally, that the inventory search was done for a purely investigatory purpose. [00:00:51] Speaker 05: Turning to the non-consensual encounter, I think it's really important to understand what was going on in the bus that day. [00:00:59] Speaker 05: Prior to Mr. Jackson's interaction with Agent Perry, [00:01:04] Speaker 05: He actually witnessed another passenger directly across the aisle from him have a similar interaction. [00:01:10] Speaker 05: Agent Perry approached Mr. Osorio and his usual folksy manner, which I'm sure the court's very familiar with by this point, and asked for permission to search Mr. Osorio's bags. [00:01:24] Speaker 05: Mr. Osorio denied permission to search his bags. [00:01:28] Speaker 05: Nevertheless, he was subjected to, I think, what we'll call a self-search [00:01:33] Speaker 05: of those bags, and immediately after that, Mr. Sorio was placed under arrest. [00:01:39] Speaker 05: So that's what Mr. Jackson is seeing when he's looking two to three feet in front of him. [00:01:44] Speaker 05: Shortly thereafter, Agent Perry approaches Mr. Jackson, has the same level of introduction, also asks for consent to search Mr. Jackson's bags. [00:01:56] Speaker 05: Mr. Jackson denies the consent, not once, not twice, but a third time, [00:02:02] Speaker 05: Only at that point, I imagine any reasonable person in that position would have sensed that denial was futile in that situation, particularly having just seen Mr. Jackson, Mr. Osorio. [00:02:16] Speaker 05: And then conducted, I guess, a similar type of self-search of that bag, showing items that are in the bag. [00:02:24] Speaker 05: And at that point, again, immediately arrested. [00:02:29] Speaker 01: Refresh my memory. [00:02:31] Speaker 01: Did the witness, or did the person sitting across from Mr. Jackson, did he allowed, he did the self-search too? [00:02:45] Speaker 01: That's correct, Judge Murphy. [00:02:47] Speaker 01: All right. [00:02:47] Speaker 01: But what you have to show is that there was something that Perry did that was compulsive [00:02:58] Speaker 01: to the fellow who was sitting across from Jackson that was replicated or that Jackson feared would be replicated in his case. [00:03:07] Speaker 01: What was that compulsive action by Perry? [00:03:12] Speaker 05: I mean, again, we're dealing with a small area. [00:03:14] Speaker 05: I know that courts have said buses, it's still fine to conduct that search, but it's the quickness and the speed within which this, I guess, the acquiescence to Agent Perry's demands took place. [00:03:27] Speaker 05: particularly in light of the initial denial. [00:03:29] Speaker 05: May I search your bag? [00:03:30] Speaker 05: Mr. Osorio clearly said no. [00:03:32] Speaker 05: Nevertheless, Agent Perry persists and continued to persist. [00:03:36] Speaker 05: With respect to Mr. Jackson, he persisted even further than he did when Mr. Osorio, until Mr. Jackson relented. [00:03:44] Speaker 05: We don't know how far along Mr. Perry would have done and continued. [00:03:47] Speaker 01: Well, Perry was saying, can I search? [00:03:49] Speaker 01: Can I search? [00:03:49] Speaker 01: Can I search? [00:03:50] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:03:51] Speaker 01: And everybody said no. [00:03:53] Speaker 01: So what's the compulsion? [00:03:55] Speaker 05: But nevertheless, it turned out that it happens, right? [00:03:58] Speaker 05: And Mr. Osorio ends up being arrested. [00:04:01] Speaker 05: Mr. Jackson witnesses that being arrested. [00:04:04] Speaker 05: A reasonable person in that situation is going to think that the same fate will be fall down. [00:04:10] Speaker 05: The arrest was immediate, and I believe not based upon probable cause. [00:04:16] Speaker 05: All that Agent Perry was able to testify at the suppression hearing was that he saw [00:04:21] Speaker 05: I guess some bulges in clothing and a tiny portion of clear plastic. [00:04:27] Speaker 05: Agent Perry's testimony itself was equivocal as to what could have been in any of those packages. [00:04:34] Speaker 01: We had a very long- But he did testify, didn't he? [00:04:37] Speaker 01: He's never seen that type of wrapping. [00:04:41] Speaker 01: It didn't ultimately turn out to be wrapping around illegal drugs. [00:04:45] Speaker 01: Didn't he testify to that? [00:04:46] Speaker 05: He's seen it either in drugs or proceeds. [00:04:49] Speaker 05: What he called proceeds, I guess, money. [00:04:52] Speaker 01: Either of which you're pertinent to look for. [00:04:55] Speaker 05: I guess they could be, but I think proceeds is a lot more of a conclusion and more facts would be needed to determine, and we spent a long time at the suppression hearing kind of parrying back and forth with what Agent Perry would describe as what proceeds would be. [00:05:13] Speaker 05: Money itself is not proceeds. [00:05:15] Speaker 05: travel across this country with money wrapped in however they want, a determination of whether or not it's proceeds. [00:05:23] Speaker 01: Well, what about when you combine that with him having the identification, there was a problem with his false identification, correct? [00:05:33] Speaker 05: Well, it wasn't false identification, Your Honor. [00:05:35] Speaker 05: The identification was correct, but he was traveling under a different name. [00:05:38] Speaker 05: He had an electronic ticket. [00:05:39] Speaker 01: So he bought a ticket under [00:05:43] Speaker 01: false briefings. [00:05:44] Speaker 05: I mean, I guess we could assume that, or maybe he was given a ticket from somebody else. [00:05:47] Speaker 05: The point is, I think, Your Honor, it's clear, he did have a ticket in another person's name. [00:05:53] Speaker 05: But however, he did present to Agent Perry identification in his own name. [00:06:00] Speaker 05: Agent Perry did testify at the suppression hearing that there is no rule on the Greyhound buses in traveling that a person has to be traveling in their own name. [00:06:12] Speaker 05: There was nothing further on the record to demonstrate why he was traveling under a different name, had someone given him a ticket or otherwise. [00:06:19] Speaker 05: But he didn't provide a false name. [00:06:24] Speaker 01: Didn't he say, Jackson, say that the only thing in this black bag is clothing? [00:06:28] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:06:29] Speaker 01: And so when he's doing the self-search, that indicates that that's not true. [00:06:35] Speaker 01: There were other things. [00:06:38] Speaker 01: these objects were wrapped in plastic. [00:06:41] Speaker 05: Well, certainly we know that now. [00:06:43] Speaker 05: It's hard to argue that there were not drugs in the two bags that Mr. Jackson had. [00:06:50] Speaker 01: That's not my question. [00:06:51] Speaker 01: My question is, Jackson says there's nothing in this bag but clothes. [00:06:57] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:06:57] Speaker 01: And he's shuffling things around indicates that's not true. [00:07:01] Speaker 01: There are things in there other than clothes. [00:07:03] Speaker 05: Agent Perry was able to testify that he witnessed a bulge in the back, could not know what it was in his experience. [00:07:10] Speaker 03: And the plastic. [00:07:11] Speaker 05: And the tiny portion of plastic, correct. [00:07:14] Speaker 05: And I would even go so far as to concede that if anything, that Agent Perry may have had probable cause to seize the back and then apply for a search warrant, but not necessarily probable cause to arrest [00:07:30] Speaker 05: Mr. Jackson, because that's what created this whole problem. [00:07:34] Speaker 03: So what is the analytical distinction? [00:07:37] Speaker 03: So if you have probable cause to seize, doesn't that imply that there is a fair probability that that duffel bag contains contraband? [00:07:53] Speaker 03: Or let me ask you a more general question. [00:08:00] Speaker 03: So if you are conceding that there's probable cause to seize the duffel bag, why? [00:08:08] Speaker 03: What is the basis for your concession? [00:08:11] Speaker 05: I said I would almost go so far as to concede. [00:08:15] Speaker 05: I certainly would not concede. [00:08:18] Speaker 05: But if that was the case, I still think the Fourth Amendment would require at that point Agent Perry to go secure a warrant to search the bag itself. [00:08:28] Speaker 05: However, what happens here, [00:08:30] Speaker 05: It kind of in runs the Fourth Amendment's protections here. [00:08:34] Speaker 05: So we have a situation where Agent Perry finds something, arrests the person, doesn't really know what he can charge the person for. [00:08:40] Speaker 05: I think everybody would have to concede that. [00:08:42] Speaker 05: We have no idea until that bag is ultimately searched what Mr. Jackson could have been charged with. [00:08:49] Speaker 03: Well, I know you said that in your brief, but I want to make sure that I understand specifically. [00:08:55] Speaker 03: I assume it's possession of a controlled, dangerous substance. [00:08:59] Speaker 03: is your argument, we don't know what the controlled dangerous substance is. [00:09:03] Speaker 05: Also even not, it's not even just my argument, based upon Agent Perry's testimony alone, it could have been proceeds, right? [00:09:09] Speaker 05: Or it could have just been money. [00:09:11] Speaker 05: It did not necessarily have to be a controlled substance. [00:09:14] Speaker 03: Okay, so if there was probable cause to believe that he has committed A, B, or C, possession of controlled dangerous substance or proceeds of the distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, we just don't know which one it is. [00:09:29] Speaker 03: Are you saying that the evidence should be suppressed because there was probable cause to believe that one of two or three crimes existed, but we don't know which crime it was. [00:09:43] Speaker 03: And I'm not trying to pick on you or ask you a trick question, but I just kind of want to drill down on exactly what your argument is. [00:09:50] Speaker 05: No, I'm sorry if I was unclear about it. [00:09:53] Speaker 03: No, it's nothing bad. [00:09:55] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:09:58] Speaker 05: I don't know what the crime would be for possession of proceeds in and of itself. [00:10:02] Speaker 05: I don't think that in and of itself is a crime. [00:10:04] Speaker 05: Perhaps it could be. [00:10:05] Speaker 03: It has to be distribution. [00:10:08] Speaker 03: Conspiracy, I imagine. [00:10:09] Speaker 03: If I own marijuana, well, I don't have any money unless I sell it. [00:10:14] Speaker 05: Right. [00:10:14] Speaker 05: Understood. [00:10:15] Speaker 05: But then when you're left with money and faced with what Agent Perry had there, if it was money, what other information would Agent Perry have had, how that money was generated? [00:10:25] Speaker 05: I'm not trying to ask you questions. [00:10:27] Speaker 01: The testimony was that, based on my experience, that there are usually two things that are in this type of packaging, and that is the drugs or the proceeds, not just plain old everyday money, but money that were proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. [00:10:49] Speaker 05: That was Agent Perry's conclusion, that he was saying it could have been proceeds. [00:10:54] Speaker 05: When asked to explain how something is proceeds and how you can prove proceeds, he was less than clear in his testimony during the suppression hearing. [00:11:03] Speaker 05: He had no way to look at money no matter how it's wrapped and determine whether or not it's proceeds. [00:11:10] Speaker 01: What if it's wrapped, as he saw, and the person who owns the black duffel bag lies about [00:11:22] Speaker 01: What is in the bag? [00:11:23] Speaker 01: Isn't that enough to push it over the brink? [00:11:28] Speaker 05: Again, I still would find it would be hard to determine at that point until you actually find out what the substance is, what to charge somebody with. [00:11:35] Speaker 05: So that's why I was making somewhat of an attempt. [00:11:38] Speaker 05: I'm sorry. [00:11:38] Speaker 01: Let me ask you this then. [00:11:39] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:11:41] Speaker 01: Isn't the standard of review such that we view the evidence in the light favorable to upholding [00:11:50] Speaker 01: whatever the order of the district court was, which in this case was deny all the motions suppressed. [00:11:57] Speaker 01: So in light of that standard of review, don't we have to look at Perry's testimony as if the proceeds were proceeds from illegal drugs? [00:12:09] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:12:09] Speaker 05: Agent Perry wasn't able to conclude that they were proceeds of illegal drugs. [00:12:13] Speaker 05: That would be first of all. [00:12:14] Speaker 05: But to answer the court's question directly, I believe the standard of review is with respect to factual issues, [00:12:20] Speaker 05: clearly erroneous. [00:12:22] Speaker 05: With respect to the reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment, that would be de novo here. [00:12:26] Speaker 05: And what I'm trying to at least argue to this court is that the warrantless search in this case, which we all agree was a warrant. [00:12:33] Speaker 01: But in analyzing clearly erroneous, you apply the standard of viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the district court's order. [00:12:44] Speaker 01: True. [00:12:44] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:12:45] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:12:45] Speaker 05: Yes. [00:12:46] Speaker 05: I would like to just jump kind of to the last part. [00:12:49] Speaker 05: So hopefully I'll have some [00:12:50] Speaker 05: time left for rebuttal. [00:12:54] Speaker 05: Cases distinguishable from Johnson, which I think is important. [00:12:57] Speaker 05: Johnson was a very factually similar case that this court decided in 2022, kind of causing the government to change and pivot their presentation, particularly in this case, to rely on what they're calling the inventory search. [00:13:13] Speaker 05: The factual differences, and in Johnson, this court decided that there was probable cause to arrest. [00:13:19] Speaker 05: I will demonstrate, I think, certain factual distinctions between Mr. Jackson, the case we have before the court now, and Johnson. [00:13:26] Speaker 05: In Johnson, there was clear consent in order to allow the search to take place, unlike here. [00:13:34] Speaker 05: Mr. Johnson was traveling under a false name without identification. [00:13:39] Speaker 05: Agent Perry in the Johnson case had more visual identification of the specific bundle. [00:13:46] Speaker 05: In Johnson, also there was an attempt by Mr. Johnson, unlike Mr. Jackson, to distance himself from the bags themselves. [00:13:54] Speaker 05: Mr. Johnson, unlike Mr. Jackson, lied about luggage that he had. [00:13:58] Speaker 05: And then also, during the course of that self-search, Mr. Johnson engaged in attempts to obscure. [00:14:04] Speaker 05: Those were the facts that this court decided led to probable cause. [00:14:08] Speaker 05: None of those are in existence here with respect to Mr. Jackson. [00:14:12] Speaker 03: I'm sorry. [00:14:13] Speaker 03: He had that shopping bag, but he said, you know, are these yours? [00:14:18] Speaker 03: And he said, yeah, the shopping bag is, but he didn't identify that duffel bag. [00:14:22] Speaker 05: I don't think he made a distinction between the two bags, because the shopping bag, I think the court would recall, the shopping bag was resting on top of the bag. [00:14:28] Speaker 05: He never denied that the black duffel bag was his as well. [00:14:32] Speaker 03: But he didn't. [00:14:34] Speaker 03: Fair point. [00:14:35] Speaker 03: Good point. [00:14:36] Speaker 03: But he, on the other hand, [00:14:38] Speaker 03: One could argue that, well, he didn't say, yeah, the shopping bag and the duffel bag. [00:14:43] Speaker 05: He certainly didn't say those two things. [00:14:44] Speaker 05: But when asked to perform the self-search, he was making no distinction about the two bags and wasn't trying in any way, at least as far as the record, to obscure that. [00:14:54] Speaker 05: So here's what happened. [00:14:56] Speaker 05: So they arrest somebody. [00:14:57] Speaker 05: They don't know what they're arresting somebody for. [00:14:59] Speaker 05: And I certainly will concede, as I must, that DEA has a policy, an administrative policy, to conduct an inventory search once items are in their care. [00:15:08] Speaker 05: but to sanctify this, to arrest somebody, and only put the items in their care because of this arrest, and then to conduct an inventory, I think would erode what limited protections the Fourth Amendment seems to have, and that is all my time, so I will not be back for rebuttal. [00:15:23] Speaker 05: But thank you all very much, I appreciate the questions. [00:15:34] Speaker 03: Okay, we'll hear from Mr. Cordoba. [00:15:47] Speaker 04: May it please the court, my name is Patrick Cordova, I represent the Appellee of the United States. [00:15:53] Speaker 04: Special Agent Perry boarded a bus, he asked for and received permission to speak with Jackson, and over the course of an approximately three and a half minute interaction, asked to see the contents of a duffel bag, which revealed bundles wrapped in clothing and a small portion of vacuum sealed plastic. [00:16:13] Speaker 04: Now having already learned that Mr. Jackson was traveling under a false name, [00:16:17] Speaker 04: to and from a place he didn't live, had failed to identify all of his luggage when asked, and denied that anything was in his duffel bag despite what Agent Perry could see, Agent Perry arrested him. [00:16:30] Speaker 04: And a later inventory search revealed narcotics. [00:16:34] Speaker 04: So all of Agent Perry's conduct was permissible, and we would ask this court to affirm the district court's conclusion that the encounter was consensual, that Jackson's conduct voluntary, that there was probable cause, [00:16:47] Speaker 04: and that the inventory search was permissible. [00:16:51] Speaker 04: So I'm happy to either address all those in order or answer any questions if you have any right off the bat. [00:16:58] Speaker 00: Well, why don't you start with the search, whether it was consensual. [00:17:02] Speaker 00: Could you respond to opposing counsel's argument that the defendant here was just worn down [00:17:13] Speaker 00: I mean, it questioned repeatedly. [00:17:16] Speaker 00: You kind of know, and having observed what happened across the way, he was just worn down. [00:17:23] Speaker 04: So I think there's plenty of guidance on this specific fact pattern. [00:17:27] Speaker 04: So the first is Drayton, US v. Drayton. [00:17:31] Speaker 04: That's a Supreme Court case from 2002. [00:17:33] Speaker 04: And the facts are substantially similar. [00:17:37] Speaker 04: In that case, the defendant, Mr. Drayton, saw another individual get arrested. [00:17:42] Speaker 04: And there the court found that, look, the arrest of one person doesn't mean that everybody on a bus was seized. [00:17:49] Speaker 04: And then as far as more than one question, well, that has also been presented to this court in US v. Ramos, Guseaga, that's an albeit unpublished case from 2020. [00:18:01] Speaker 04: But there, Agent Perry asked to search twice, and then eventually asked the defendant to open up her bag and show him what's inside. [00:18:09] Speaker 04: She did, and there this court found [00:18:12] Speaker 04: that there was no involuntary consent there. [00:18:15] Speaker 04: A similar case, US v. Zubia Melendez, that's a 2001 10th Circuit case, there the officer asked to search a car. [00:18:25] Speaker 04: The defendant replied, no, never. [00:18:27] Speaker 04: And the officer asked again, hey, can I search the car? [00:18:31] Speaker 04: And they said, sure. [00:18:33] Speaker 04: Again, this court found that was okay. [00:18:35] Speaker 04: And I think the important distinction is, was there a change [00:18:40] Speaker 04: in the environment created by the officer from the first time he asks to the second time. [00:18:45] Speaker 01: And if you look at the facts... Well, the change is, I'm not going to give up. [00:18:49] Speaker 01: You tell me no, I'm going to ask again. [00:18:53] Speaker 01: Isn't that the change? [00:18:54] Speaker 04: Well, the facts here are a little bit more nuanced than that. [00:18:58] Speaker 04: Agent Perry asks to search. [00:19:00] Speaker 04: He doesn't hear an answer. [00:19:02] Speaker 04: So he asks again. [00:19:03] Speaker 04: And the defendant says no. [00:19:07] Speaker 04: So that fact right there shows that he's [00:19:10] Speaker 04: doesn't feel coerced. [00:19:11] Speaker 01: So he asks him twice. [00:19:12] Speaker 04: He asks him twice. [00:19:13] Speaker 01: He's already over, the next one is going to be over the two limit, right? [00:19:17] Speaker 04: Well, the third is a different question. [00:19:19] Speaker 04: He says, okay, if you're not going to let me search it, would you be willing to open it up and show me what's inside? [00:19:24] Speaker 04: And that's, he consents to that. [00:19:25] Speaker 01: And isn't inherent in that is that I'm not leaving until you let me look at your stuff. [00:19:33] Speaker 04: I don't think so. [00:19:34] Speaker 04: And you know, [00:19:35] Speaker 04: We have those specific facts. [00:19:38] Speaker 04: The District Court analyzed whether or not that was coercive. [00:19:41] Speaker 04: Its finding is it was not. [00:19:43] Speaker 04: You know, your question is, is there a certain number of times that someone could be worn down? [00:19:49] Speaker 04: And I would submit there are, but that's not this case. [00:19:53] Speaker 00: Not- Well, maybe you can tell us what is that number? [00:19:57] Speaker 04: I wouldn't wanna- Or? [00:19:59] Speaker 04: Well, I think you need to look at the facts of each case. [00:20:02] Speaker 04: And here, not only does Agent Perry [00:20:05] Speaker 04: You know, not only, I'm sorry, does Jackson say, no, you can't search, but Agent Perry affirms. [00:20:10] Speaker 04: He says, and that's your right. [00:20:12] Speaker 04: He tells Jackson, you have the right to do that. [00:20:15] Speaker 04: So we ask a different, more limited question, and as I pointed out, there have been instances where officers have asked repeated numbers of times to search, and this court has found that it wasn't coercive. [00:20:29] Speaker 04: And I think the only thing that has changed is he's just asked a different question, and I don't think that tips the scales [00:20:35] Speaker 04: to making it an overly coercive environment. [00:20:40] Speaker 04: And the other thing I'd like to point out, so I actually want to jump to probable cause here. [00:20:51] Speaker 04: So one of the things I'd like to point out is there was some discussion with Mr. Myers about is this proceeds? [00:20:58] Speaker 04: What are proceeds? [00:21:00] Speaker 04: Well, Agent Perry was clear about what he thought it was. [00:21:04] Speaker 04: He testified that he, quote, believed he had illegal narcotics concealed inside of his clothing, inside of that clear heat-sealed plastic. [00:21:15] Speaker 04: And he testified later, I thought it was bundles of illegal narcotics. [00:21:20] Speaker 04: I didn't think it was proceeds. [00:21:22] Speaker 04: So the distinction in his testimony is this. [00:21:25] Speaker 04: He says, look, I've seen this situation hundreds of times. [00:21:30] Speaker 04: And in all those occasions, it was either narcotics, [00:21:34] Speaker 04: or proceeds. [00:21:36] Speaker 04: But what he goes on to later explain is that in this case, I thought it was narcotics. [00:21:42] Speaker 04: And he provides all of his testimony as to why each individual factor led him to believe that Jackson was trafficking narcotics. [00:21:50] Speaker 01: What were those things? [00:21:53] Speaker 01: Well, let me ask more limited. [00:21:55] Speaker 01: Did any of the things he testified to as to why he leaned towards narcotics versus proceeds? [00:22:02] Speaker 01: Based on his observation, I mean, did he see a white [00:22:05] Speaker 01: powery substance or? [00:22:07] Speaker 04: So we certainly didn't see the contents but he said it was based off of the totality and he explained part of the reason was because of where he was traveling and his experience going from west coast east was generally indicative of narcotics rather than proceeds. [00:22:25] Speaker 04: That was his explanation but he certainly believed it was narcotics. [00:22:28] Speaker 03: Because he was going from the west coast to the east coast? [00:22:31] Speaker 04: Yes, from California to Atlanta or to Georgia outside of Atlanta. [00:22:36] Speaker 01: So if you're going from Atlanta to California, it's probably proceeds? [00:22:42] Speaker 04: Well, he wasn't asked about that. [00:22:44] Speaker 04: We don't have that in the record. [00:22:45] Speaker 04: But that was one of the things he based it off of. [00:22:47] Speaker 04: He thought it was narcotics. [00:22:49] Speaker 04: He didn't think it was proceeds. [00:22:51] Speaker 04: And he was clear about that when pressed by Mr. Myers at the suppression hearing. [00:22:57] Speaker 04: And as far as what Mr. Jackson was arrested for, it was suspected possession of narcotics. [00:23:03] Speaker 04: Agent Perry testified he was arrested for, quote, the suspected bundles inside the duffel bag. [00:23:10] Speaker 04: And it's not just, probable cause isn't just what he saw. [00:23:14] Speaker 04: It's everything that he knew by the time he saw it. [00:23:17] Speaker 04: So he knew that Mr. Jackson was traveling under a name that wasn't his. [00:23:22] Speaker 04: He knew that he was traveling to and from a place he didn't live. [00:23:24] Speaker 04: He knew that Jackson had failed to identify all of his luggage when asked. [00:23:30] Speaker 04: And what also went into it is how [00:23:32] Speaker 04: Mr. Jackson conducted the self-search. [00:23:35] Speaker 04: He positioned himself such that Agent Perry couldn't see what was going on, and Agent Perry testified that in his experience, that is indicative of someone that's trafficking. [00:23:46] Speaker 04: And then you also obviously have the bundles inside, or the bulges inside of the clothes, the heat-sealed plastic, and Mr. Jackson's denial that nothing's in there when asked. [00:23:59] Speaker 04: So that's definitely [00:24:01] Speaker 04: I believe more than what was present in US v. Johnson where this court found that there was indeed probable cause. [00:24:09] Speaker 04: So certainly if there was probable cause to arrest, there was probable cause to seize the luggage. [00:24:14] Speaker 04: Now, going back to the nature of the encounter, whether or not it was consensual, certainly US v. Dryden speaks to that issue. [00:24:27] Speaker 04: Again, that's a Supreme Court case. [00:24:31] Speaker 04: There were three officers on a bus. [00:24:35] Speaker 04: They had concealed weapons, visible badges. [00:24:38] Speaker 04: But just like here, there was no use of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, brandishing of weapons, blocking of exits, commands, or an authoritative tone of voice. [00:24:50] Speaker 04: Those are all facts that the district court found, and they're certainly not clearly erroneous. [00:24:56] Speaker 04: So there was certainly a consensual encounter here. [00:25:00] Speaker 04: So last I want to touch on the inventory search. [00:25:05] Speaker 04: So there's two things that this court needs to decide. [00:25:10] Speaker 04: One, was there an inventory policy in place that was followed? [00:25:14] Speaker 04: And two, was the purpose of the inventory policy to create an inventory? [00:25:19] Speaker 04: A list of items, of personal items. [00:25:23] Speaker 04: And the district court found that yes, it's to both. [00:25:26] Speaker 04: Certainly, Agent Perry followed DEA's written inventory policy. [00:25:30] Speaker 04: And he created an inventory of items that wasn't drugs, obviously. [00:25:35] Speaker 04: And those items were returned to Jackson's attorney. [00:25:41] Speaker 04: So as far as bad faith, the burden was on Jackson to show bad faith. [00:25:46] Speaker 04: And the district court found that there was zero evidence on the record before it of bad faith. [00:25:52] Speaker 04: And we don't believe that that finding was clearly erroneous and there would be no reason to find bad faith here. [00:25:58] Speaker 04: There's just simply no [00:26:00] Speaker 04: evidence of it. [00:26:02] Speaker 04: So unless the court has any further questions, I'll see the remaining time. [00:26:06] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:26:07] Speaker 04: Thank you. [00:26:11] Speaker 03: Amy, does he have any rebuttal? [00:26:14] Speaker 03: He's over. [00:26:15] Speaker 03: He's over, okay. [00:26:17] Speaker 03: Thank you, counsel. [00:26:19] Speaker 03: Well submitted. [00:26:21] Speaker 03: We'll take this under advisement.