United States v. Hobbs

• Decision Date: 01 February 2022
• Docket Number: No. 19-4419,19-4419
• Citation: 24 F.4th 965
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Erick Rahumid HOBBS, Defendant - Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

24 F.4th 965

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Erick Rahumid HOBBS, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4419

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: December 9, 2021

Decided: February 1, 2022

ARGUED: Joshua Elliott Hoffman, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Brandon Keith Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, Samika K. Boyd, Assistant United States Attorney, Christine O. Goo, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Wynn joined.

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, Erick Hobbs primarily challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained after police collected cell phone location data from his cell phone provider without a warrant on the ground of exigent circumstances. The district court concluded that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search because Hobbs had a criminal history of violent offenses, presently was armed, and had threatened imminent harm to numerous people, including his former girlfriend, her child, and any law enforcement officers who might try to arrest him.

Upon our review, we agree with the district court that exigent circumstances permitted the officers' search and use of Hobbs' cell phone location data obtained without a warrant. We also reject Hobbs' contention that he is entitled to relief under the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L.Ed.2d 594 (2019). Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment.

I.

This case arose from allegations of domestic violence reported to Baltimore County police by Hobbs' former girlfriend, Jaquanna Foreman, shortly after 7:00 p.m. on February 3, 2018.¹ At the time, Foreman was home with her seven-year-old daughter. Foreman told the responding officers that Hobbs had come to the back of her home, brandished a semi-automatic handgun, and used the gun to break a window in the home. He then forcibly entered the home and removed a television. Before leaving the home with the television, Hobbs threatened to kill Foreman, her daughter, and other family members, and stated that if she contacted the police, he also would kill any responding officers.

The officers escorted Foreman and her daughter to the police station, where Foreman provided additional details about Hobbs, including aliases, dates of birth, information about his vehicle and his social media usage, and a cell phone number. She also stated that Hobbs had a criminal record. Foreman informed Detective Michael Nesbitt that, in addition to the handgun Hobbs displayed that night, she previously had seen him armed with assault rifles and that he was "obsessed with firearms." Nesbitt verified that Hobbs had a violent criminal history, including convictions for robbery and attempted murder.

Based on this information, Detective Nesbitt concluded that there was "an extreme urgent threat to the community." Around midnight, he submitted an "exigent form" to T-Mobile, Hobbs' cell phone provider. That request sought immediate police access without a warrant to "pings"² revealing Hobbs' cell phone location, and to call logs displaying the phone numbers that Hobbs contacted, which would enable the officers to locate Hobbs. On the "exigent form," Nesbitt stated that the basis for the exigency was "[s]uspect threatened girlfriend[']s life with a handgun, said he will not be taken alive by police[,] was armed." As Nesbitt was preparing this request, another officer began detailing information to obtain an arrest warrant. Within an hour, T-Mobile responded with real-time "pings" on Hobbs' cell phone that alerted Nesbitt every 15 minutes to Hobbs' general location within 3,000 to 5,000 meters. Another detective used call logs obtained from T-Mobile to determine which of Hobbs' associates lived within the geographical range of each "ping" to pinpoint Hobbs' location more precisely.

About six hours after the domestic incident, a team of officers attempted to effect a traffic stop of Hobbs' vehicle. Hobbs tried to flee from the officers until his car eventually collided with a parked vehicle. The officers placed Hobbs under arrest and recovered a loaded handgun on the ground between the driver-side door of his car and the curb. Later that night, Detective Nesbitt secured a search warrant for Hobbs' car, and two days later obtained a search warrant for the same cell phone information obtained earlier pursuant to the "exigent form." The police also executed a separate search warrant for Hobbs' residence and seized 65 rounds of ammunition from his home.

Hobbs was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement did not justify the officers' use of the cell phone "pings" and call logs. The district court denied the suppression motion. The court held that the officers reasonably concluded that exigent circumstances justified use of the "exigent form" instead of a search warrant, based on the officers' information that Hobbs was armed and had threatened Foreman, her child, and any law enforcement officers who tried to arrest him. The court also held that Detective Nesbitt reasonably concluded that the "exigent form" was the only way to ensure a timely response from T-Mobile, because "[e]ven an hour delay under the circumstances here could be disastrous." After hearing additional evidence regarding the information provided by T-Mobile, the court reaffirmed its denial of the suppression motion. The court explained that the officers properly used Hobbs' call logs to "narrow the search area" established by the "pings."

At trial, the government played Foreman's 9-1-1 call, in which she reported that Hobbs had a black handgun, and had threatened to kill her, her daughter, and her extended family. The government also introduced into evidence a text message Hobbs sent to Foreman before the incident in which he said, "I want my tv back bitch." Additionally, Detective Nesbitt and other officers recounted their investigation in detail, including Hobbs' arrest and the officers' recovery of the loaded firearm from the vicinity of Hobbs' vehicle and the ammunition from his home. The jury returned a guilty verdict.

Hobbs now appeals the district court's denial of his suppression motion. Also, in supplemental briefing on appeal, Hobbs argues that the district court erred in failing to comply with the requirements of the Supreme Court's decision in Rehaif , 139 S. Ct. 2191, which was decided while this appeal was pending.

II.

Hobbs argues on appeal that the officers' use of the cell phone "pings" and call log records was not justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Hobbs maintains that the officers lacked information that he would flee from the police and that, therefore, the exigent circumstances exception did not apply. He also asserts that the officers were not facing "imminent harm," and that Foreman and her family no longer were in danger because Hobbs had obtained the television he was seeking. We disagree with Hobbs' arguments.

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the district court's legal conclusions de novo, and we examine the court's factual findings for clear error. Coleman , 18 F.4th at 135. The Fourth Amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable searches" and provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "Because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness," the Supreme Court has recognized certain exceptions to the warrant requirement. United States v. Curry , 965 F.3d 313, 321 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

At issue in the present case is the exigent circumstances exception, under which a warrantless search will be found valid under the Fourth Amendment when "there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant." Mitchell v. Wisconsin , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2534, 204 L.Ed.2d 1040 (2019) (quoting Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141, 149, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) ); see also Birchfield v. North Dakota , 579 U.S. 438, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016) ("The exigent circumstances exception allows a warrantless search when an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant."). This exception applies when "the exigencies of the situation ... render the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Curry , 965 F.3d at 321 (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, when officers face "an immediate and credible threat or danger, it is inherently reasonable to permit police to act without a warrant." United States v. Yengel , 711 F.3d 392, 396 (4th Cir. 2013).

Notably, however, the exigent circumstances exception is limited and narrow in application. Curry , 965 F.3d at 322. As we observed in our decision in Curry , the Supreme Court has identified only a few "emergency conditions" that may support a finding of exigent circumstances:

"(1) the need to pursue a fleeing suspect; (2) the need to protect individuals who are threatened with imminent harm; and (3) the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence." Id. at 321 (citing Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2223, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018) ) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lange v. California , ––– U.S. ––––, ...