Docket No. 2015-01 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________________________ THOMAS HAVERFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF EAGLETON, Respondent. ________________________________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF EAGLETON ________________________________ BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER ________________________________ TEAM #9 Counsel for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the district court properly denied the Petitioner’s motion to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine and the equipment and supplies commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine: A. Whether Deputy Sanderson had reasonable suspicion to extend a lawful traffic stop about a burnt-out headlight to investigate whether Petitioner was under the influence of drugs in the operation of his vehicle by having Petitioner perform field sobriety tests? B. If the traffic stop was not lawfully extended to investigate drug use by Petitioner, was Petitioner’s subsequent consent to search his truck tainted by prior illegality, so that the evidence seized was inadmissible? C. Was Petitioner constructively seized without reasonable suspicion when the deputy re-approached Petitioner’s vehicle to request consent to search? 2. Whether the district court properly refused to allow Petitioner to withdraw his guilty plea: A. Was Attorney Brendanawicz’s assertion that Petitioner’s conviction led to a risk of deportation constitutionally deficient? B. Was Petitioner prejudiced because of Attorney Brendanawics’s deficient performance? i TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & STATUTES INVOLVED.............................................. ix STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 6 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8 I. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED THE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPRESS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO EXTEND THE STOP AND DEPUTY SANDERSON NEVER OBTAINED LAWFUL, VALID CONSENT TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE. ................... 8 A. After Deputy Sanderson completed the investigation into Petitioner’s traffic violation, the extension of the stop without reasonable suspicion was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.. .................................................................................................................... 8 B. The consent, search and seizure that produced the evidence of methamphetamine and other contraband were the fruits of the unlawful extension of the traffic stop of Tomas Haverford in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ........................................................ 12 1. The Post-Stop Detention of Tomas Haverford was a Constructive Seizure Not Independently Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of Criminal Activity...........13 2. Tomas Haverford’s Consent To Search Was Not Attenuated From The Unlawful Extension Of The Traffic Stop..........................................................15 C. Granting the Motion to Suppress will maintain the American public's perception of a legitimate police force and protect the constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.....................................................................................................................17 II. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE ATTORNEY BRENDANAWICZ'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTES INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ............................................................... 19 A. Attorney Brendanawicz's assertion that Petitioner's conviction led to a risk of deportation was constitutionally deficient under Padilla. ............................................. 20 B. Attorney Brendanawicz's performance prejudiced Petitioner because there is a reasonable probability that Petitioner would not have pled guilty and his rejection of the plea bargain was rational under the totality of the circumstances. ................................ 24 ii 1. Petitioner would not have pled guilty because he says that he would not have and both his counsel and the court were acutely aware of his concerns regarding deportation......................................................................................24 2. Petitioner's rejection of the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances because he has significant ties to the United States, he had the possibility of success at trial, and it was more important to the petitioner to avoid deportation that to risk a worse sentence..............................................26 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 30 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 13, 14 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) .................................................................................................................. 19 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) .................................................................................................................. 18 Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) .................................................................................................................. 19 Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) .................................................................................................................. 19 Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) .................................................................................................................. 26 Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) .............................................................................................................. 6, 16 California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) .................................................................................................................. 13 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) .................................................................................................................... 18 Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 20 Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) .................................................................................................................. 18 Dunaway v. New York, 98 S. Ct. 2248 (1979) ................................................................................................................ 13 Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893) .................................................................................................................. 26 Fraser v. Commonwealth, 59 S.W.3d 448 (Ky. 2001) ........................................................................................................ 25 iv Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1958)...............................................................................................................24, 25 Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) ........................................................................................................ 8, 12, 13 Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................................ 24 Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) .............................................................................................................. 20 Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).....................................................................................................................23 Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) .................................................................................................................. 28 Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)...................................................................................................................28 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970) .................................................................................................................. 19 Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) .................................................................................................................... 13 Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) .................................................................................................................... 8 Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) ........................................................................................................... passim Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) .................................................................................................................... 27 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) .................................................................................................................