Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03260/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Modestas Taylor
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3260

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Modestas Taylor, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: May 25, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government appeals from the district court’s order suppressing certain

evidence in the prosecution of Modestas Taylor. We remand the case to the district

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Following up on a call of suspicious activity, three uniformed police officers

went to a hotel room looking for a white man. The officers knocked on the door and

Taylor, a black male, answered. The police entered the room, questioned Taylor,

eventually searched the room and found drugs in a pair of men’s pants. The police

later found more drugs in a cigarette package in the pants. The police arrested Taylor

Appellate Case: 04-3260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Entry ID: 1906995
-2-

shortly after discovering the drugs. The police did not, before or after the arrest, read

Taylor his Miranda rights.

The government charged Taylor with possession with intent to distribute five

grams or more of cocaine base. Taylor filed a motion to suppress evidence. After a

hearing on the suppression motion, the magistrate judge issued a report and

recommendation, recommending that the evidence and the statements be suppressed.

The magistrate judge concluded the statements should be suppressed, because Taylor

was in custody when he made the statements and the police had not informed Taylor

of his Miranda rights. The magistrate judge also concluded that the evidence found

as a result of the search also should be suppressed, because Taylor’s consent to the

search resulted from an unlawful detention. The government objected to the

magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The district court issued an order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and suppressing the evidence. The district court, in suppressing

Taylor’s statements, agreed with the magistrate judge’s determinations that Taylor

was in custody and his statements made to police were taken in violation of Miranda.

The district court further agreed with the magistrate judge’s report and determination

that Taylor’s consent to search the room was the product of an illegal detention.

The magistrate judge and the district court did not address whether the police

legally entered the hotel room. The magistrate judge stated that a police officer

testified that Taylor agreed to let the officers in the room, but also noted that Taylor

testified that the officers entered the room without asking and immediately began

asking questions. The district court in addition observed that a police officer testified

that the officers asked to enter the room and did not enter until Taylor acquiesced to

the request, but also noted that Taylor testified that the officers “just walked into the

room.” Neither the magistrate judge nor the district court resolved this conflicting

testimony. 

Appellate Case: 04-3260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Entry ID: 1906995
-3-

If the police did not have permission to enter the hotel room, the statements and

evidence obtained would be the fruit of the illegal entry and properly were

suppressed. See United States v. Conner, 127 F.3d 663, 666-68 (8th Cir. 1997)

(affirming a district court’s order suppressing evidence where police illegally entered

a hotel room and noting “[i]t is a well-established constitutional principle that law

enforcement officers may not enter a person’s home without a warrant unless the

entry is justified by exigent circumstances or the consent of the occupant”).

Moreover, even if Taylor consented to the police officers’ entry, such entry does not

entitle a non-consensual search of the room. We remand, for a determination of

whether or not the police legally entered the hotel room after knocking on the door.

In addition, the magistrate judge did not make explicit credibility

determinations in the report and recommendation on the issues. Although some

credibility determinations may be inferred by the district court from the magistrate

judge’s findings and opinion, we cannot determine with sufficient certainty what

testimony of Taylor the magistrate judge credited and what testimony of the police

officers were credited or discredited by the magistrate judge. On remand, the

magistrate judge should make specific credibility findings to determine, in detail, the

circumstances of the encounter in the hotel room. These additional findings may bear

on unlawful entry and on the custody questions.

We remand this case to the district court for further findings and rulings

thereon. We retain jurisdiction. The certified record of such further proceedings

shall be forwarded to this court. We request expedition of further proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3260 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Entry ID: 1906995