FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
S. Hewes for appellant.
Renée M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney,
with whom Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, was
on brief, for appellee.
Lynch, Thompson, and Barron, Circuit Judges.
BARRON, Circuit Judge.
A. Hillaire challenges his conviction for conspiracy to
commit access-device fraud on the ground that the District
Court erred in denying his pretrial suppression motion. We
along with his co-defendant, Gyadeen P. Ramdihall, was
indicted in federal court in the District of Maine on
February 25, 2014, for conspiracy to possess and use
counterfeit access devices with intent to defraud, see 18
U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1), (a)(3), (b)(2); id. §
371, as well as several related counts. Specifically,
Hillaire was also indicted for (1) possession of counterfeit
access devices, and aiding and abetting such possession; (2)
use of counterfeit access devices, and aiding and abetting
such use; and (3) wire fraud, and aiding and abetting wire
fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1), (a)(3); id.
§ 1343; id. § 2. Before their trial,
Hillaire and Ramdihall submitted motions to the District
Court to suppress evidence and statements that had been
obtained in the previous months in connection with three
the stops occurred in Maine, on September 6, 2013 and January
24, 2014, respectively, and were carried out by local law
enforcement. The other stop occurred in Ohio, on October 10,
2013, and was carried out by state law enforcement. The
evidence Hillaire and Ramdihall sought to suppress included
seventeen credit cards that were found in the trunk of a
rental car during the Ohio traffic stop on October 10, 2013,
as well as the information that law enforcement obtained from
those cards by swiping the cards' magnetic strips through
a card reader.
two-day suppression hearing, the District Court denied
Hillaire's and Ramdihall's motions to suppress the
evidence obtained from the three traffic stops. Hillaire then
conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and use
counterfeit devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1029(a)(1) and (a)(3). He reserved his right to appeal from the
District Court's denial of his suppression motion. He was
sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment and three years'
supervised release, and ordered to pay $17, 987.56 in
restitution. He now appeals the District Court's denial
of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the
October 10, 2013 traffic stop in Ohio. We review the District
Court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual
findings for clear error. United States v. Belton,
520 F.3d 80, 82 (1st Cir. 2008).
recounted the facts relevant to the Ohio stop at length in
United States v. Ramdihall, which is also decided
this day, and so we need not do so here.
See United States v. Ramdihall, No. 15-1841, slip
op. at 19-21 (1st Cir. May 18, 2017). Unlike Ramdihall,
Hillaire was a passenger in the car, rather than its driver.
But, when a police officer makes a traffic stop, both the
driver of the vehicle and the passengers within it are seized
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, if the
seizure is unlawful, as Hillaire contends it was, he has
standing to seek the suppression of the seizure's fruits.
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 257 (2007);
see also United States v. Starks, 769 F.3d 83, 89
(1st Cir. 2014). Nevertheless, Hillaire's challenge to
the lawfulness of the seizure fails on the merits for the
reasons already provided in Ramdihall. See
Ramdihall, slip op. at 21-32. And, as there was no
unlawful seizure, the evidence that Hillaire seeks to
suppress obviously does not constitute the fruits of an
that remains for us to consider with respect to
Hillaire's challenge to the denial of his suppression
motion is Hillaire's contention that the District Court
erred in concluding that the warrantless swiping of the
credit cards through the card ...