PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4687

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALEXANDER HILLEL TREISMAN, a/k/a Alexander S. Theiss,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:20–cr–00208–WO–1)

Argued: March 10, 2023 Decided: June 23, 2023

Before KING, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Wynn joined.

ARGUED: Daniel Micah Blau, DANIEL M. BLAU, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney, Craig M. Principe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4687 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 20

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

Alexander Hillel Treisman appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to

suppress evidence that police discovered while searching his van without a warrant. But

warrantless searches of vehicles carried out as part of law enforcement’s community

caretaking functions do not violate the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable under the

circumstances. And because the record here supports the district court’s conclusion that the

officers acted reasonably in searching the van under their community caretaking functions,

we affirm.

I. 1

When she came to work in late May 2020, Crystal Wright—a manager of the Fifth

Third Bank’s Kannapolis, North Carolina branch—noticed a van in the bank’s lot in the

same spot it was parked at the close of business the day before. Concerned, Wright called

the Kannapolis Police Department (the “KPD”) seeking assistance.

Officer Nathan Lambert responded, arriving around 11:00 am. The van had an

expired California tag. Its front cabin was separated from the rear cargo area. The van had

front cabin doors, rear doors and a door on the passenger side of the rear cargo area. Officer

Lambert could see inside the front cabin, but the rear cargo area did not have any windows,

making it impossible to look inside. It also had an air conditioning unit on top, but, since

the car was turned off, it was not running.

1 The facts are based on the testimony from the hearing on Treisman’s motion to suppress. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4687 Doc: 41 Filed: 06/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 20

Officer Lambert tried to electronically identify the van’s owner but was unable to

do so. Nor could he confirm the vehicle’s identification number because it was covered by

papers. From the passenger side window, Lambert observed an assault rifle, a handgun

box, an ammunition box, a Tannerite container—a legal target shooting product that can

also be used to make explosives—a container of pills and a suitcase.

Lambert then went inside the bank to meet with Wright. He learned that the bank’s

security cameras did not record activities in the area of the parking lot where the van was

located.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document