United States v. Brown

• Decision Date: 31 January 2017
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 16–00047–BAJ–RLB
• Citation: 230 F.Supp.3d 513
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Henry BROWN
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

230 F.Supp.3d 513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.Henry BROWN

CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 16–00047–BAJ–RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Filed January 31, 2017

Michael Jerome Jefferson, United States Attorney's Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff.

RULING AND ORDER

BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Before the Court is the Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (Doc. 18) filed by Defendant. Defendant seeks to suppress evidence seized during a search of his residence on November 22, 2015. The United States of America ("Government") filed a memorandum in opposition to the Motion. (See Doc. 19). On November 3, 2016, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion. The Government and Defendant subsequently filed post-hearing briefs. (See Docs. 43, 44).

The facts of this case present a unique challenge, testing the precise limits that the Fourth Amendment places on the ability of law enforcement personnel to enter a person's home without a warrant and to use information obtained during such a warrantless entry to apply for a search warrant. For the reasons explained herein, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

At approximately 9:30 a.m. on November 22, 2015, Deputy William Lockwood ("Deputy Lockwood") of the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office responded to a domestic disturbance call in Central, Louisiana. (Doc. 36, Hr'g Tr. at p. 15, ll. 24–25; id. at p. 16, ll. 3–7). Although the alleged domestic disturbance took place at 14630 Forest Grove Avenue, Central, Louisiana 70818,¹ (Doc. 18–1 at p. 1), Deputy Lockwood met the victim at a nearby gas station, (Doc. 36, Hr'g Tr. at p. 25, ll. 3–6). The victim alleged that her husband, Joshua Duke ("Duke"), was the only other person involved in the domestic disturbance² and informed Deputy Lockwood that Duke would be at the residence of his friend, "HB," (Doc. 36, Hr'g Tr. at p. 26, ll. 19–24; id. at p. 31, ll. 10–13), which was located at 3434 Lone Oak Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70814 ("Lone Oak Drive address"),³ (id. at p. 16, ll. 3–14). After receiving that information and obtaining a description of Duke from the victim,⁴ Deputy Lockwood contacted additional deputies who were assigned to the area in which the Lone Oak Drive address was located in order to secure their assistance in apprehending Duke. (Id. at p. 17, ll. 1–12). At approximately 11:44 a.m., Deputy Lockwood, along with Corporal Dustin Strickland ("Corporal Strickland") and Deputy Jared Arceneaux ("Deputy Arceneaux"), arrived at the Lone Oak Drive address. (Id. at p. 17, ll. 14–15). The officers testified that they approached the door of the residence that leads to the carport, knocked, and announced their presence. (Id. at p. 17, ll. 14–16). After demanding that any persons inside come to the door, Duke—who matched the description that the victim previously had given to Deputy Lockwood—opened the carport door, stepped outside, and identified himself. (Id. at p. 28, ll. 22–25; id. at p. 29, ll. 1–11; id. at p. 37, ll. 9–11). Duke was the only person who exited the residence, (see id. at p. 28, ll. 22–25; id. at p. 29, ll. 1–11; id. at p. 37, ll. 9–11), and the officers did not see or hear any indications that other persons were present in the house, (see id. at p. 74, ll. 2–7). In response to questioning by the officers and after being advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , Duke allegedly told the officers initially that he did not know to whom the residence belonged and that he entered the residence upon determining that the door was open. (Id. at p. 17, ll. 24–25; id. at p. 18, ll. 1–2). Later, Duke allegedly stated that his friend, "HB"—whom the victim identified to Deputy Lockwood as the owner of the Lone Oak Drive address and as Duke's friend—may have been inside, but he was not sure if "HB" had left the residence. (Id. at p. 30, ll. 8–18; id. at p. 51, ll. 5–7). While in the carport area, officers claim to have detected the odor of marijuana, (id. at p. 31, ll. 14–16), and, through the open door, to have seen what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette and a knife⁵ resting on top of an ottoman in the living room, (id. at p. 64, ll. 15–19). Duke admitted to the officers that he had been smoking marijuana inside the residence before the officers arrived. (Id. at p. 33, ll. 18–20).

The officers testified that while they were questioning Duke, they saw what they perceived to be possible signs of forced entry on the carport door and doorframe; namely, the officers reported that they observed "splinters in the wood and cracks" on the doorframe where the lock engages, (id. at p. 18, ll. 20–21), burglar bars that had been "bent back," (id. at p. 39, l. 21), and mesh in the burglar-bar door that had been torn near the doorknob, (id. at p. 50, ll. 16–17).⁶ The officers did not recover any burglary tools from Duke, however, and the officers did not observe any such tools in or around the carport area. (Id. at p. 72, ll. 5–7). Given their perceived state of the door and the doorframe, as well as Duke's initial responses that he did not know to whom the residence belonged, the officers made further announcements to determine if any additional persons were present in the house and to ensure that, if there were additional persons present, no one was injured or in need of aid. (Id. at p. 51, ll. 13–14). The officers received no response to their announcements, (id. at p. 51, l. 15), after which they further pushed open the already-ajar door to permit their announcements to be heard more clearly, (id. at p. 64, ll. 11–14). The officers again received no response, (id. at p. 51, l. 25), and Corporal Strickland testified that he did not "see any movement [,] see another person[,] or hear anybody talking," (id. at p. 74, ll. 6–7).

Despite the lack of indicia that other persons were present in the home and their ability to see—through the ajar carport door—that the interior of the home did not appear to have been rummaged through, (see id. at p. 73, ll. 6–10), the officers apparently developed the belief that they had happened upon a burglary in progress—even though they had received information from Duke and the victim that Duke was friends with the homeowner, (id. at p. 41, ll. 15–17), and the officers testified that they had no reason to believe that Duke had left the scene of the domestic disturbance to commit a burglary, (id. at p. 30, ll. 19–22)—and "made the decision ... to go in and do ... a security sweep, just to make sure there[ was] nobody tied [up] or somebody ... injured [be]cause if [Duke] broke in, there[ was] no telling ... what happened," (id. at p. 52, ll. 1–4). Duke, however, did not appear to the officers to have been in a physical fight or confrontation. (Id. at p. 77, ll. 14–18). The officers then entered the residence to "clear it," in an effort to "look[ ] for a person [or] anybody hurt." (Id. at p. 52, ll. 8–9). The officers encountered no signs that the house had been burglarized upon entering the residence. (Id. at p. 73, ll. 6–13). After an "initial sweep" of the house, (id. at p. 19, ll. 17–18)—the purpose of which, according to the officers, was to ensure that "there [ was] not a threat or anything immediately present," (id. at p. 60, ll. 5–6)—the officers did not locate any persons, (id. at p. 19, ll. 17–18). The officers testified that they then conducted a "secondary search," which involved searching in places where a person could be hiding. (Id. at p. 60, l. 1). During the "secondary search," the officers entered a bedroom with an attached bathroom. (Id. at p. 52, ll. 9–14). The officers initially did not see a person in the bedroom or the bathroom, (see id. at p. 52, ll. 14–15), but observed a box on top of a cabinet in the bathroom, (id. at p. 52, ll. 16–19). Protruding from the top of the box, officers testified that they observed "what appeared to be a sizeable bag of marijuana." (Id. at p. 52, ll. 19–20). After noting the presence of the marijuana, the officers then noticed "a blanket [that] appeared to have a lump in it that looked abnormal" under the bed in the bedroom. (Id. at p. 52, ll. 23–24; id. at p. 53, l. 6). Corporal Strickland then "tapped [the lump under the blanket] with [his] foot" and discovered that a person was underneath the blanket. (Id. at p. 52, l. 25). After Corporal Strickland announced his and the other officers' presence, identified himself and the others as police officers, and demanded that the person under the blanket show his hands, the person under the blanket—Defendant—exposed his hands. (Id. at p. 53, ll. 11–12).

The officers then placed handcuffs on Defendant and brought him to the kitchen. (Id. at p. 53, ll. 13–14). After being advised of his rights under Miranda , Defendant told the officers his name and identified himself as the homeowner. (Id. at p. 54, ll. 10–13). The officers performed a routine warrant check using Defendant's name, which produced information indicating that there was a warrant for Defendant's arrest. (Id. at p. 54, ll. 20–21).

After securing Defendant, taking him to the kitchen, and completing their "sweep" of the house, (id. at p. 53, ll. 12–14), the officers returned to the bathroom and moved the box from which marijuana protruded so that they could see its contents, (id. at p. 73, ll. 1–2). Inside, officers observed "several pills, which [they] believed to be ecstasy[,] a bag of white powder [that] appeared to be cocaine, ... some bullets[,] and a little pill bottle with liquid in it [that] was probably codeine."⁷ (Id. at p. 56, ll. 9–11, 14–15). The officers brought to Defendant's attention their discovery of the box and its contents, but Defendant did not respond to any of their questions on the topic. (Id. at p. 54, ll. 23–25; id. at p. 55, ll. 1–2). Defendant declined to give the officers consent to search his home, (id. at p. 57, ll. 4–6), and was thereafter secured in a police vehicle, (i...