U.S. v. Conner
| Decision Date | 22 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 96-4010-DEO.,CR 96-4010-DEO. |
| Citation | 948 F.Supp. 821 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Larry Duane CONNER, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. John Charles TILTON, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Michael Hobart, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Sioux City, IA, for U.S.
Kevin W. Techau, Federal Public Defender's Office, Des Moines, IA, for defendant Conner.
Martha M. McMinn, Sioux City, IA, for defendant Tilton.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................. 824
II. FINDINGS OF FACT ............................................................. 825
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................... 828
A. Standing .................................................................. 829
B. Entry And Arrest .......................................................... 831
1. Did the door open by consent or upon a demand under color of
authority? ............................................................. 832
2. Probable cause ......................................................... 838
a. Detective Iddings's observations .................................... 838
b. Collective knowledge ................................................ 840
3. Warrantless entry and arrest ........................................... 843
a. The Payton decision ................................................. 843
b. The exigent circumstances exception to the Payton rule .............. 845
c. Exigent circumstances here .......................................... 848
i. Safety considerations ........................................... 848
ii. Destruction of evidence ......................................... 850
4. Summary ................................................................ 850
C. Search And Seizure ........................................................ 850
1. Leon and the "good-faith" exception .................................... 851
a. The Leon decision ................................................... 851
b. The Fletcher-White line of authority ................................ 852
c. "Good faith" here ................................................... 852
2. Searches incident to warrants .......................................... 854
a. The "independent source" rule ....................................... 855
b. The "independent source" analysis here .............................. 857
i. Probable cause prong ............................................ 857
ii. The motivation prong ............................................ 858
IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................... 859
Our Constitution sometimes places high demands on our law enforcement officers not only to do the right thing, but to do it at the right time in the right way.1 In this case the defendants were caught with obvious fruits of criminal activity about them. However, they challenge their arrests and the seizure of evidence on the ground that law enforcement officers violated constitutional standards on both when and how seizures of persons and things must be done. Although the government asserts that the defendants opened the door to their motel room by consent when officers knocked, the defendants contend that they opened the door in response to a demand for entry under color of authority. The defendants also contend that their arrests and subsequent seizures of evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, because the officers did not wait for an arrest warrant before entering their motel room to arrest them. The court must consider whether the defendants consented to the entry of police officers into their motel room or instead acquiesced to a show of authority; whether officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances justifying an immediate entry of the motel room and arrest of the defendants without a warrant; whether any constitutional inadequacies in the seizure of evidence may nonetheless be excused under the Leon "good-faith" exception; and whether the "independent source" rule will salvage the constitutionality of search warrants and seizures pursuant to the warrants, when the warrants were obtained after the officers' entry into the motel room and were based in part on information gained by that assertedly unconstitutional entry.
The criminal cases in which the motions to suppress evidence now before the court are pending are in federal court by virtue of federal firearms charges. In a two-count indictment returned on February 22, 1996, defendant Larry Duane Conner is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e)(1), and possession of a stolen firearm shipped in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). In a separate two-count indictment also returned on February 22, 1996, defendant John Charles Tilton is charged with identical offenses.
On April 25, 1996, defendant Conner filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of a state search warrant on January 2, 1996, for a motel room registered in his name and occupied by both Conner and Tilton. In that motion, Conner also moves to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers following his arrest. On May 7, 1996, Conner filed an amendment to his motion in which he moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of another state search warrant, also on January 2, 1996, but this time at his residence, following the search of the motel room. Conner contends in his amendment to his motion that evidence obtained pursuant to the second warrant is "derivative evidence" obtained from the prior illegal police activity at the motel, and therefore must be suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree. On April 26, 1996, the court granted Conner's request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress and set Conner's motion down for hearing.
On May 8, 1996, defendant Tilton also filed a motion to suppress evidence that mirrors Connor's original motion. Tilton's motion again seeks to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the state search warrant for the motel room where Conner and Tilton were staying. Tilton's motion also seeks to suppress any statements Tilton made to law enforcement officers following his arrest.
On May 13, 1996, after the defendants filed their respective motions, the United States moved to consolidate the evidentiary hearing for the two cases. Conner and Tilton consented to the consolidation. On May 14, 1996, the Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, a senior judge of this district, granted the motion to consolidate and ordered that an evidentiary hearing on defendant Tilton's motion to suppress be consolidated with the evidentiary hearing already set by this court for defendant Conner's motion.
The United States timely resisted Conner's and Tilton's motions. The government argues that the police gained consensual visual access to the defendants' motel room when Tilton voluntarily opened the door. The government further argues that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrests of the defendants. Finally, the government contends that, even if Conner's and Tilton's arrests violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence found in the motel room and at Conner's residence is nonetheless admissible under the Leon "good-faith exception."2
An evidentiary hearing on the defendants' motions was held on June 21, 1996. At the hearing, the United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Michael Hobart. Defendant Conner was represented by Kevin W. Techau of the Federal Public Defender's Office in Des Moines, Iowa. Defendant Tilton was represented by counsel Martha M. McMinn of Sioux City, Iowa. At the hearing, the United States presented the testimony of Sergeant Doug Young, Officer Steve Polak, and Officer Larry Iddings of the Sioux City Police Department. Defendants offered the testimony of Wendie Oestmann and defendant Tilton.
At the close of the evidentiary hearing the court stated that it would permit the parties to file supplemental briefs and then allow the parties oral arguments. The parties subsequently filed supplemental legal memoranda in support of their respective positions, and the court entertained oral arguments on the motions to suppress on August 20, 1996. At the end of oral arguments, the court stated that it would permit the parties to file supplemental briefs solely on the question of the applicability of the "good-faith exception" established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). After the parties filed their supplemental legal memoranda, the court held a further hearing on October 16, 1996, on the applicability of the Leon good-faith exception in light of some of Leon's Eighth Circuit progeny, such as United States v. Fletcher, 91 F.3d 48, 51-52 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 983, 112 S.Ct. 1666, 118 L.Ed.2d 387 (1992); and United States v. White, 890 F.2d 1413 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 825, 111 S.Ct. 77, 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990). This matter is now fully submitted.
The court makes the following findings of fact solely for the purpose of disposing of the present motions to suppress. On December 25, 1995, a burglary was reported at the residence of Golby Uhlir in Sioux City, Iowa. The burglary occurred between December 23, 1995,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. McClain
...the totality of the Eighth Circuit's jurisprudence in this area to a factual situation quite similar to McClain. In United States v. Conner, 948 F.Supp. 821 (N.D.Iowa 1996), the court addressed a situation where the police officers unlawfully accessed and entered the defendant's motel room ......
-
People v. Willis
...P.2d 63; U.S. v. Corral-Corral (10th Cir.1990) 899 F.2d 927, 932; U.S. v. Maggitt (5th Cir.1985) 778 F.2d 1029, 1034; U.S. v. Conner (N.D.Iowa 1996) 948 F.Supp. 821, 852; U.S. v. Turner (D.Vt.1989) 713 F.Supp. 714, 721, fn. 6; Hoay v. State (2001) 75 Ark.App. 103, 55 S.W.3d 782, 785; Turnag......
-
Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Brunton Co., 96-C-0965.
... ... at 297, 100 S.Ct. 559. Brunton's contacts with Wisconsinites in Wisconsin were not random, fortuitous, or attenuated, see Burger King, 471 US. at 486, 105 S.Ct. 2174, or "independent transactions where an entity or an individual contacts Brunton and purchases consumer products," as Brunton ... ...
-
Canny v. Bentley
...defendants do not make any argument that the arrest warrant justified either act.2 The cases cited by defendants—United States v. Conner , 948 F.Supp. 821, 838 (N.D. Iowa 1996), aff'd , 127 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Mathias , 721 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2013) —can be disting......