United States v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 07 October 1982
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 3-82-48.
• Citation: 565 F. Supp. 9
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. John Henry MORGAN.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

565 F. Supp. 9

UNITED STATES of America v. John Henry MORGAN.

Cr. No. 3-82-48.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, N.D.

October 7, 1982.

J. Polk Cooley, Rockwood, Tenn., for defendant.

Thomas Dillard, U.S. Atty., Knoxville, Tenn., for the U.S.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT L. TAYLOR, Chief Judge.

In this criminal case the Grand Jury charges that on or about the 13th day of June, 1982 in the Eastern District of Tennessee, John Henry Morgan willfully and knowingly possessed a firearm, to-wit: an RPB Industries .45 caliber pistol Model M-10, converted to fully automatic, which had not been registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, as required by Chapter 53, Title 26, United States Code. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871.

Defendant has filed a motion to suppress all items of evidence obtained as a result of the search and seizure of the defendant and the premises occupied by him in Harriman, Tennessee on June 13, 1982. He also seeks to suppress all written or oral statements made by him. He says that the searches and seizures, including the arrest, were illegally made without a warrant. Defendant says that at the time of the entry upon the premises occupied by him, there was no probable cause to believe that he had committed a felony, and there was no observation by the arresting officer of a misdemeanor committed by the defendant. He says any statements that he made were obtained as a result of a violation of his rights, and as the result of the illegal search and seizure, including the arrest.

The Government relies upon alleged exigent circumstances and the plain view doctrine for the arrest. In the opinion of the Court, the plain view doctrine does not apply. Neither did exigent circumstances exist in this case. The officers, in the opinion of the Court, should have obtained an arrest and/or search warrant.

The evidence shows that on the evening of June 13, 1982, Deputy Roger Reynolds and Deputy Teddy Bales of the Morgan County Sheriff's Department received a complaint of people firing weapons in the Potter's Falls area of Morgan County. The officers drove to the Potter's Falls area. Deputy Reynolds heard what he thought was gunfire from an automatic weapon. The officers found five or six people who had been shooting into a clay bank, commonly used for target practice. The officers went up to the people, told them of the complaint, and asked them to quit shooting and leave. An unnamed bystander told Deputy Reynolds that one of the group said they would shoot anyone who attempted to interfere with them. The weapons had been placed in the truck of a 1970 blue Cadillac with non-Tennessee license plates and a "95" prefix. After telling the people to leave and talking to the bystander the officers drove back to the Sheriff's office for assistance.

Law enforcement officers from Morgan and Roane Counties and the city of Harriman were alerted. Approximately an hour after Deputies Reynolds and Bales left the Potter's Falls area, the Cadillac was located at the residence of defendant's mother in Harriman. Nine officers soon arrived and surrounded the house. Officer Thomas Alcorn of the Harriman Police Department drove his car in front of the house and parked to the rear and right of the Cadillac, inside the yard. His car lights were off. Officer Alcorn then turned bright floodlights on the house. He called over a loud speaker for defendant to come out.

In the meantime, defendant, his wife, and three others had taken the guns into the living room of the house where defendant was staying at the time. Defendant's wife saw the outline of Officer Alcorn's car coming up the alley to the house. She did not know who it could be. She alerted defendant. He then picked up a weapon and stood behind the front screen door. When called out by Officer Alcorn, defendant put the gun down inside the house and went outside. The police then called the others from the house and searched for weapons.

It has been consistently held that

searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-documented exceptions.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

The Government first contends that there was no search in this case since plaintiff came to the door with a weapon "in plain view" of Officer Alcorn. The plain view doctrine, however, has been limited to instances where an officer had "a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). We do not find a prior justification for Officer Alcorn's entry onto the property without a search or arrest warrant. This is not a case...