Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03192/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03192-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gonzalo Uscanga-Ramirez
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Judge, United States District Court for the

District of Nebraska, adopting report and recommendations of the Honorable

Thomas D. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3192

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Gonzalo Uscanga-Ramirez, *

* 

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2007

 Filed: January 31, 2007 

___________

Before MURPHY and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and READE,1

 District Judge.

___________

READE, District Judge.

Gonzalo Uscanga-Ramirez pled guilty to one count of being an illegal alien in

possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A).

Uscanga-Ramirez conditioned his guilty plea on the right to challenge the district

court’s2

 partial denial of his motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
-2-

I.

On November 15, 2005, around 1:00 p.m., Ina Olson called the Lincoln Police

Department and reported that her son-in-law, Uscanga-Ramirez, was holding her

daughter, Lisa Olson, against her will in a house at 1919 Griffith Street. Ina Olson

said that she would wait in a parked car in front of the house. The Department

dispatched Officer John Brandl and Officer Kevin Hinton to the house.

When the officers arrived, they saw Ina Olson sitting in a parked car in front of

the house. They also saw Lisa Olson walking out the front door and down the

sidewalk towards them. Lisa Olson told the officers that Uscanga-Ramirez had not

held her against her will. Lisa Olson stated that she was leaving with her mother.

As Lisa Olson got into the car, Officer Brandl asked her where her husband

was, if he was “okay,” and whether there would be a problem when she came back to

the house. Lisa Olson said that Uscanga-Ramirez had locked himself in a bedroom

with a gun and was very upset, because she had told him that she was going to leave

him. Lisa Olson denied that Uscanga-Ramirez had threatened to harm anyone,

including himself.

Officer Brandl asked Lisa Olson if he could go into the house and check on her

husband. Lisa Olson agreed and gave the officers directions on how to find the

bedroom. Officer Brandl asked Lisa Olson and her mother to stay in the area until

they finished checking on Uscanga-Ramirez.

The officers went into the house through the front door. They walked across

the living room towards the bedroom. An Hispanic man walked into the living room

from an adjoining kitchen. Officer Hinton ordered the man to identify himself, and

the officers determined that the man was not Uscanga-Ramirez. The man directed the

officers to a bedroom, which was across the living room. The man’s directions were

consistent with Lisa Olson’s directions. The bedroom door was closed.

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
-3-

The officers tried to open the door, but it was locked. They knocked on the

door, identified themselves as police officers and announced that they needed to talk

to Uscanga-Ramirez immediately to make sure he was safe. Uscanga-Ramirez

unlocked and opened the door.

The officers told Uscanga-Ramirez what Lisa Olson had told them. During the

conversation, Officer Brandl stood at the foot of a bed, Uscanga-Ramirez sat at the

foot of the bed and Officer Hinton stood near the center of the bed between UscangaRamirez and the doorway.

Officer Brandl asked Uscanga-Ramirez where the gun was located. UscangaRamirez said he did not have a gun. He told the officers that there was no gun and

Lisa Olson was lying. Officer Hinton noticed that the bed was unmade and that a

pillow was lying in the middle of the bed, rather than at the head of the bed. Officer

Hinton lifted the pillow and found a loaded .22 caliber revolver.

The officers handcuffed Uscanga-Ramirez. They did not read him Miranda

warnings. They asked him if he had a permit for the revolver, and he admitted that he

did not. When asked where he got the revolver, Uscanga-Ramirez responded that he

had bought it from a friend on the street about “six months ago.” The officers seized

the revolver, because Uscanga-Ramirez did not have a permit. They did not arrest

Uscanga-Ramirez.

II.

In the district court, Uscanga-Ramirez filed a motion to suppress, in which he

sought to exclude the revolver and his statements from trial. Uscanga-Ramirez argued

that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered his bedroom

without a warrant and searched for the revolver. He argued that they violated the Fifth

Amendment when they questioned him without giving him Miranda warnings. After

holding an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that the district

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
-4-

court suppress the statements but not the revolver. Uscanga-Ramirez filed timely

objections to the report and recommendation, insofar as it did not recommend

suppression of the revolver. After conducting the required de novo review pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), see United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600-01 (8th

Cir. 2003), the district court adopted the report and recommendation. UscangaRamirez later entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession

of a firearm and ammunition, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), and the district court

sentenced him to ten months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

Uscanga-Ramirez now appeals the district court’s partial denial of his motion to

suppress.

III.

On appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress, we review a district court’s

factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. United States v.

Durham, 470 F.3d 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Velazquez-Rivera,

366 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir. 2004)).

IV.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of individuals “to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .

.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. It is a “‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that

searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively

unreasonable.’” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 559 (2004) (quoting Payton v. New

York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980)). Uscanga-Ramirez argues that the officers were not

justified in entering his bedroom without a warrant and conducting a warrantless

search under his pillow.

The district court held that the officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment

in entering Uscanga-Ramirez’s bedroom without a warrant because of the consent and

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
-5-

exigent-circumstances exceptions to the warrant requirement. The district court also

upheld the search under the pillow based upon the exigent-circumstances exception

to the warrant requirement. Uscanga-Ramirez argues that the district court’s reliance

on those exceptions to the warrant requirement is misplaced.

A.

“Consent to search is a valid exception to the warrant requirement if the consent

is knowingly and voluntarily given.” United States v. Hudspeth, 459 F.3d 922, 929

(8th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Sanders, 424 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir. 2005)).

Generally, “the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises . . . is

valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared.”

United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170 (1974). Uscanga-Ramirez does not

dispute that Lisa Olson knowingly and voluntarily allowed the officers to enter the

home, a premises over which the two possessed common authority. Instead, relying

on Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (2006), Uscanga-Ramirez argues that Lisa

Olson’s consent, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for the officers’ entry into the

home without a warrant.

In Randolph, law enforcement officers talked to the defendant and his wife in

the doorway to their house. 126 S. Ct. at 1519. One officer asked the defendant for

permission to search his house, and he refused. Id. The same officer then asked the

wife for her consent. Id. She agreed, and the officers searched the house. Id. The

Supreme Court suppressed the evidence gained from the search. Id. at 1526. The

Supreme Court held that “a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over

the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as

reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident.”

Id.

Randolph is clearly distinguishable. There is no evidence that UscangaRamirez expressly refused the officers’ entry into the home at any time. Id.; cf.

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
-6-

Hudspeth, 459 F.3d at 930-31 (holding non-consenting, non-present spouse’s express

denial of consent rendered search unreasonable under Randolph). Therefore, Randolph

does not render the officers’ entry into the home unreasonable.

B.

Exigent circumstances is another exception to the warrant requirement. United

States v. Chipps, 410 F.3d 438, 442 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Collins,

321 F.3d 691, 694-95 (8th Cir. 2003)). “We have long held the ‘view that legitimate

concern for the safety of individuals may constitute “exigent circumstances” justifying

warrantless entries . . . .’” United States v. Janis, 387 F.3d 682, 687 (8th Cir. 2004)

(quoting United States v. Antwine, 873 F.2d 1144, 1147 (8th Cir. 1989)). In

particular, “law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant . . . to

protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 126 S. Ct.

1943, 1947 (2006) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978)); see also

Chipps, 410 F.3d at 442 (“Under the exigent-circumstances exception, . . . police may

enter property without a warrant if they could reasonably believe that a person is in

need of immediate assistance.” (citing Collins v. Bellinghausen, 153 F.3d 591, 596

(8th Cir. 1998))). “‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is

justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’”

Mincey, 437 U.S. at 392 (1978) (quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212

(D.C. Cir. 1963)). The inquiry is objective and “focus[es] on ‘what a reasonable,

experienced police officer would believe.’” United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d

1015, 1021 (quoting In re Sealed Case 96-3167, 153 F.3d 759, 766 (D.C. Cir. 1998));

see Brigham City, 126 S. Ct. at 1947 (stating that the inquiry is objective and the

officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant).

Even if Lisa Olson had not consented to the officers’ warrantless entry into the

home, exigent circumstances justified their warrantless entry into the home, entry into

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
3

Uscanga-Ramirez also argues that the district court erred when it held that the

officers’ warrantless entry into his bedroom was justified pursuant to the consent

exception. Uscanga-Ramirez maintains that his consent was not knowing and

voluntary. Because we hold that exigent circumstances justified the entry into the

bedroom, we need not address this argument. 

-7-

the bedroom3 and search under the pillow. Clearly, the officers were justified in

entering the home and bedroom without a warrant. The officers had reliable

information that Uscanga-Ramirez had locked himself in a bedroom with a gun and

that he was very upset over the disintegration of his marriage. When the

circumstances are viewed objectively, Brigham City, 126 S. Ct. at 1947, the officers

were justified in entering the house and bedroom to make sure that Uscanga-Ramirez

would not seriously injure or kill himself. See, e.g., id.; see also Janis, 387 F.3d at

687-88 (holding warrantless entry into home was justified, in part, because the officers

needed “to secure [a] weapon so others would not be harmed”).

Officer Hinton’s warrantless search under the pillow was also reasonable. Law

enforcement officers may search a home without a warrant when “‘“the exigencies of

the situation” make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless

search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Brigham City, 126

S. Ct. at 1947 (quoting Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393-94). It was objectively reasonable

for Officer Hinton to quickly conduct a limited search under the pillow for a gun. 

The pillow was within Uscanga-Ramirez’s reach and capable of hiding a gun, and

Officer Hinton reasonably perceived a risk of danger to everyone in the room. See,

e.g., United States v. Quezada, 448 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Examples of

[exigent] circumstances [include] . . . when an officer . . . reasonably perceives a risk

of danger to the police or others.” (citing Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100

(1990))). Although Uscanga-Ramirez denied possessing a gun, the officers were

objectively justified in disbelieving him. Lisa Olson had told the officers that there

was a gun in the bedroom, and the pillow was, in fact, misplaced. Given the close

quarters, the search under the pillow was necessary to ensure the safety of UscangaRamirez and the officers. 

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428
-8-

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness . . . .” Samson v.

California, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 2201 n.4 (2006). Viewed in their totality, the officers’

actions were reasonable.

V.

The district court correctly denied, in part, Uscanga-Ramirez’s motion to

suppress. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3192 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/31/2007 Entry ID: 3273428