U.S. v. Thomas, 04-6148.
Decision Date | 01 December 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04-6148.,04-6148. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher Todd THOMAS, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Victor L. Ivy, Assistant United States Attorney, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellant. C. Mark Donahoe, Hardee, Martin, Dauster & Donahoe, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Victor L. Ivy, Assistant United States Attorney, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellant. C. Mark Donahoe, Hardee, Martin, Dauster & Donahoe, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: SILER and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; SHARP, District Judge.*
The United States challenges a suppression-of-evidence ruling, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that police officers constructively entered a home without a warrant and without being able to satisfy any of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement. Because the police officers did not enter the house and because the defendant, Christopher Thomas, did not exit the house as a result of physical force or any other conspicuous show of authority by the police, cf. United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158 (6th Cir.1984) and United States v. Saari, 272 F.3d 804 (6th Cir.2001), we reverse.
Early in the morning of October 21, 2003, Tim Higgins, the manager of the Oakland Gin Company in Lauderdale County, Alabama, noticed a pickup truck near the company's tank of anhydrous ammonia. His suspicion aroused, he followed the truck to a restaurant and confronted the driver, Christopher Thomas, who denied being near the tank. Higgins recorded the license number of the truck and reported the incident to local police.
Soon after receiving the report, Deputy Joe Hamilton spotted Thomas driving his truck and stopped him. When asked what he had been doing at the gin company, Thomas explained that he had been looking for a place to eat. Hamilton let him go but then proceeded to the gin company, where he observed that the fence around the tank had been cut, a wrench had been left on the ground and a hose had been tapped into the tank. Based on these observations, the police suspected Thomas of attempting to steal anhydrous ammonia, a chemical used in the production of methamphetamine.
At roughly 10:00 a.m. that morning, several Alabama-based and Tennessee-based police officers drove to the Tennessee home of Ginger Hopper, where Thomas had been living and which is near Lauderdale County, Alabama. There, they found Thomas's truck parked behind the house; one of the doors to the truck was open, and a Thompson .357 handgun lay on the front seat. The officers also noticed a silver canister in the back of the truck, similar to canisters that one of the officers recognized as having been used in other thefts of anhydrous ammonia.
Two officers knocked on the back door of Hopper's home, which served as the primary entrance to the home according to local police. Two officers went to the front door. Four patrol cars in total were parked at the house, and apparently one of the cars contained a fifth officer. When Thomas came to the back door, the officers "told [him] that the Alabama investigators wanted to talk to him and asked him to come out of the residence, which he did." D. Ct. Order at 5; see also Thomas Br. at 6 (). After Thomas exited the house, he refused to talk and requested an attorney. At this point, the officers arrested him.
After the arrest, the police searched Thomas and discovered incriminating evidence, including methamphetamine and a handwritten recipe for making more. They also searched the truck and discovered two firearms as well as the scent of anhydrous ammonia.
The district court suppressed the evidence, holding that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), the court noted, police may not enter a home to make an arrest without a warrant in the absence of exigent circumstances. Id. at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371. And under United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158 (6th Cir.1984), the court added, a "constructive entry" into a home in violation of Payton occurs whenever the police use "coercive [] conduct" to force a defendant outside of the home. Id. at 1166. Concluding that the police conduct in this instance was coercive, the district court held that a constructive entry into Hopper's home had taken place, that the police neither possessed a warrant nor established exigent circumstances for the entry and that the arrest accordingly was unlawful.
Payton, 445 U.S. at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371. The question here is when we will deem officers to have crossed that "threshold" in law when they have not done so in fact. As there are no material disputes about what happened during the encounter in this case, the district court's determination that a constructive entry occurred receives de novo review. See United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217, 1222-23 (6th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554-55, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980).
On one side of the ledger, the law has long permitted officers to engage in consensual encounters with suspects without violating the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 821 (6th Cir.2005) (); United States v. Hudson, 405 F.3d 425, 439 n. 10 (6th Cir.2005) (); United States v. Waldon, 206 F.3d 597, 602 (6th Cir.2000) ().
Consensual encounters do not lose their propriety, moreover, merely because they take place at the entrance of a citizen's home. A number of courts, including this one, have recognized "knock and talk" consensual encounters as a legitimate investigative technique at the home of a suspect or an individual with information about an investigation. See, e.g., United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d 563, 568 n. 2 (6th Cir.2005) (); Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492, 504-05 (6th Cir.2002) ( ); Nash v. United States, 117 Fed.Appx. 992, 2004 WL 2912796, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec.16, 2004) ( ); United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir.2001) (); United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir.2000) ( ); United States v. Jerez, 108 F.3d 684, 691-92 (7th Cir.1997) ( ); United States v. Titemore, 335 F.Supp.2d 502, 505 (D.Vt.2004) () (quotation omitted).
On the other side of the ledger, we have held that a consensual encounter at the doorstep may evolve into a "constructive entry" when the police, while not entering the house, deploy overbearing tactics that essentially force the individual out of the home. In United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158 (6th Cir.1984), we held that a "constructive entry" occurred when a suspect emerged from a house "in response to coercive police conduct." Id. at 1166. And in United States v. Saari, 272 F.3d 804 (6th Cir.2001), we described coercive police conduct as "such a show of authority that [the] Defendant reasonably believed he had no choice but to comply." Id. at 809.
The difference between the two — between a permissible consensual encounter and an impermissible constructive entry — turns on the show of force exhibited by the police. In Nash, for example, we described a typical consensual encounter: 2004 WL 2912796, at *1, 117 Fed.Appx. 992. Morgan, by contrast, involved a team of ten officers who surrounded the house, blocked the suspect's car, "flooded the house with spotlights and summoned Morgan from his mother's home with the blaring call of a bullhorn." 743 F.2d at 1161. And Saari involved four officers who "knocked forcefully on the door and announced that they were the police." 272 F.3d at 808. One officer "had a 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun drawn and in a `low ready' position, that is, pointed at approximately forty-five degrees toward the ground in front of the door." Id. at 806. The others had their service weapons drawn, and, "[u]pon opening the door, Defendant was instructed to come outside, which he did." Id. at 808; see also Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 819 (3d Cir.1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Albea v. Bunn
...) (internal quotation marks omitted). "The Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." United States v. Thomas , 430 F.3d 274, 276 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). But Plaintiffs admit a well-settled and common-sense exception to this otherwise ironclad protecti......
-
United States v. Baker
...encounters do not lose their propriety ... merely because they take place at the entrance of a citizen's home." United States v. Thomas , 430 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 2005). And police ordinarily need no suspicion for this type of "knock and talk." See id. (citing cases). The Supreme Court h......
-
Klein v. Madison, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-4507
...cooperation unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies." Butler , 405 F. App'x at 656–57 (citing United States v. Thomas , 430 F.3d 274, 277–78 (6th Cir. 2005) ).16 "The Supreme Court has referred to Dorman as ‘a leading federal case defining exigent circumstances.’ " Anderson ,......
-
United States v. Gregory
...or to ask for consent to search the premises." Id. at 512 (citing Jardines , 569 U.S. at 8, 133 S.Ct. 1409 ; United States v. Thomas , 430 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 2005) ). Under prior Sixth Circuit cases, officers could even walk to the back of a residence to communicate with residents. Id.......
-
Protecting Attorney-Client Communications, Attorney Work Product, and Data
...conducting interviews, or taking other steps that would make the investigation public.”). 3. See, e.g. , United States v. Thomas, 430 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 2005) (recognizing a “knock and talk” as “consensual encounters” and “as a legitimate investigative technique at the home of a suspec......
-
Search and seizure
...may be found where an occupant is forced to relent due to overbearing tactics by the police. United States v. Thomas (6th Cir. 2005) 430 F.3d 274, 277. Where “an individual’s decision to open the door to his home to the police is not made voluntarily, the individual is seized inside his hom......
-
It doesn't matter what they intended: the need for objective permissibility review of police-created exigencies in "knock and talk" investigations.
...(4th ed. 2004) (acknowledging propriety of "knock and talk" procedure while noting limitations). (15.) See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 430 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 2005) (recognizing legitimate investigative procedure of "knock and talk" consensual encounters); United States v. Jones, 23......