United States v. Anderson

Decision Date06 September 2012
Docket NumberNo. 11–3599.,11–3599.
Citation688 F.3d 339
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Johun L. ANDERSON, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

John G. Gromowsky, The Gromowsky Law Firm, LLC, Kansas City, MO, argued, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued (David M. Ketchmark, Acting U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BYE, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

BYE, Circuit Judge.

Johun L. Anderson appeals the district court's 1 denial of his motion to suppress drugs and weapons found in an apartment he entered after fleeing from police during a “buy/bust” operation. Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea to (1) possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and (2) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Exercising his reserved right to appeal the suppression ruling, Anderson argues the actions by law enforcement officers during the “buy/bust” operation violated his Fourth Amendment rights and tainted the search warrant affidavit used to seize the drugs and weapons from the apartment. We affirm.

I

On August 21, 2008, Manuel Anchondo, an undercover detective with the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department's Street Narcotics Unit (“SNU”), arranged to purchase cocaine base from Dion Brown in the approximate area of Ninth and Gladstone. Brown instructed Anchondo to call upon arrival. Anchondo had made two prior purchases of cocaine base from Brown, and he had obtained Brown's telephone number after the initial purchase. Anchondo called Brown when he arrived. Shortly after, Anderson exited an apartment at 815 1/2 Gladstone and approached the detective's undercover vehicle.

Anderson entered the officer's vehicle and sold several grams of cocaine base to the detective. Anchondo then notified police surveillance crews it was a “good deal” and to “send the crews for the buy/bust.” As he drove away, he observed Anderson, through his rearview mirror, walking back toward the apartment building.

Matthews Masters, a Kansas City, Missouri, police officer also assigned to the SNU, was positioned near Ninth and Gladstone with four other officers in two unmarked patrol vehicles. When they received confirmation the drug sale had occurred, Masters turned the corner and saw Anderson “standing on the sidewalk in front of the building.” Masters did not witness the drug transaction, but identified Anderson by the description Anchondo had provided: a black male with braided hair, shirtless, and wearing blue bandanna-patterned slippers.

When Anderson observed the officers, he “took off running toward the common door of the apartment building.” Two officers, Larry Weimhold and Justin Crump, immediately followed Anderson. Anderson proceeded to run up the stairs onto the front porch of the apartment building and entered the common door.

Weimhold and Crump pursued Anderson into the building. As Masters approached the building, he observed, through an open window, Anderson running up the stairs. Masters then saw Anderson run up the second flight of stairs and enter the north apartment unit. Because Crump and Weimhold were initially unable to determine which upstairs apartment unit Anderson had entered, they began knocking on doors and announcing, “Police,” repeatedly. Masters then ascended the stairs and told the two officers that Anderson had run into the north apartment.

Masters proceeded to open a window in the hallway of the second floor, and along with Weimhold, stepped onto the balcony of the north apartment unit. When the officers looked into the north apartment, they observed two black males and a white female moving “back and forth between rooms, and it was hurried movements.”

At the same time, a woman later identified as Shiloh Horn, approached the apartment building and told the officers she was the renter of the north apartment. Masters then left the balcony and explained to Horn that the officers were conducting a “buy/bust” operation and the subject had fled into her apartment. Horn responded by saying the only person who should be in her apartment was her boyfriend, later identified as Anderson. Masters asked Horn if the officers could go into her apartment, and Horn said she was more than willing to let the officers go in and get those people out of her apartment.”

Before handing the key over to Masters, Horn asked if she could call her boyfriend and see if he was inside the apartment. Horn made the call and informed Masters that Anderson was inside the apartment. Masters then asked Horn if she would ask Anderson to come out of the apartment. Horn called Anderson again, and about one minute later, Anderson opened the apartment door.

The officers then detained Anderson and two other individuals, Brown and Samantha Tigner, just inside the front door of the apartment. The three individuals were taken out of the building. Anchondo then drove by on the street and identified Anderson as the person who had made the drug sale earlier that evening.

Masters asked Horn for consent to do a protective sweep to ensure that no other individuals were still in the apartment. Horn consented. During the sweep, the officers observed crack cocaine lying on a bed, plastic baggies swirling inside of a toilet bowl, and the butt of a rifle in an opened closet. The officers did not immediately seize the items, and Horn was told law enforcement officers were going to seek a search warrant for the apartment.

A search warrant was obtained later that evening. The search recovered the items previously mentioned, as well as a High–Point 9–millimeter rifle, a 9–millimeter Ruger handgun, twenty-three rounds of live 9–millimeter ammunition, two digital scales, two cell phones, and $2,900 in United States currency.

On May 20, 2009, Anderson and Brown were charged in a three-count indictment with (1) conspiracy to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, (2) possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and (3) possession of two firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).

Anderson filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant, which the district court denied. On April 26, 2011, as part of a conditional plea agreement, Anderson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Anderson was sentenced to consecutive terms of 120 and 60 months' imprisonment, respectively.

II
A. Standard of Review

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir.2006). We may affirm the district court's denial of a motion to suppress on any ground the record supports.” United States v. Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir.2004).

B. The Denial of Anderson's Motion to Suppress

Anderson argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because law enforcement officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights at three points in time during the “buy/bust” operation: (1) the entry onto the apartment balcony by Masters and Weimhold, (2) the entry into the apartment to detain Anderson, and (3) the “protective sweep” conducted by the officers after detaining Anderson. Anderson asserts each of these alleged Fourth Amendment violations by police tainted the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant to seize the drugs and weapons from the apartment.

The Fourth Amendment shields individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755, 759 (8th Cir.2012). [A] search or seizure carried out on a suspect's premises without a warrant is per se unreasonable, unless the police can show that it falls within one of a carefully defined set of exceptions[.] Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). Those exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement include “hot pursuit of a fleeing subject,” and a variety of other exigent circumstances, including “the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Kentucky v. King, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 1856, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Voluntary consent of the person whose home or property has been searched is another recognized exception. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990).

1. Hot Pursuit

First, Anderson asserts the search warrant was improperly issued because the supporting affidavit was tainted by evidence gathered from the officers' observations made from the balcony of the apartment into which Anderson fled. We disagree.

As a preliminary matter, the search warrant affidavit did not explicitly or implicitly refer to the observations by the detectives while on the balcony. Therefore, the affidavit could not have been tainted by the officers' observations on the balcony. However, because the parties address this issue at length, we consider below whether the officers entry onto the balcony was unlawful.

“Police officers may enter premises without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.” King, 131 S.Ct. at 1856. “Hot pursuit can, without more, justify a warrantless entry.” United States v. Schmidt, 403 F.3d 1009, 1015 (8th Cir.2005). In Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 753, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), the Supreme Court instructed us to consider two factors in determining whether “hot pursuit” creates an exigency: (1)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • United States v. Robinson, 13–3253.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 25 Marzo 2015
  • United States v. Goodale
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 30 Diciembre 2013
    ... ... United States v. Anderson, 688 F.3d 339, 343 (8th Cir.2012). This court “will affirm the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or, based on the entire record, it is clear a mistake was made.” ... ...
  • United States v. De L'Isle
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 8 Junio 2016
  • City of Bismarck v. Brekhus, s. 20170165–20170167
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 22 Marzo 2018
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Searches of the home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2020
    ...marijuana, while they got a warrant, noting that marijuana possession was a jailable offense. Similarly, in United States v. Anderson , 688 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2012), the court approved a hot pursuit entry in a marijuana case because it was a jailable offense. SEARCHES OF THE HOME 4-47 Searc......
  • Searches of the Home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2016 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2016
    ...marijuana, while they got a warrant, noting that marijuana possession was a jailable offense. Similarly, in United States v. Anderson , 688 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2012), the court approved a hot pursuit entry in a marijuana case because it was a jailable offense. Practice Pointer : Check both f......
  • Searches of the Home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2017 Contents
    • 4 Agosto 2017
    ...marijuana, while they got a warrant, noting that marijuana possession was a jailable o൵ense. Similarly, in United States v. Anderson , 688 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2012), the court approved a hot pursuit entry in a marijuana case because it was a jailable o൵ense. Practice Pointer: Check both fede......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT