Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03533/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03533-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven B. Frencher
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3533

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Steven B. Frencher, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2007

Filed: October 4, 2007

___________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Steven B. Frencher appeals from the order of the District Court1

 denying his

motion to suppress. We affirm.

We state the facts as found by the District Court. Frencher's testimony at the

hearing on his motion differed in several material respects from the court's findings,

Appellate Case: 06-3533 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358881
-2-

but the court declared that Frencher's evidence was not credible. A credibility

determination made by a district court after a hearing on the merits of a motion to

suppress is "virtually unassailable on appeal." United States v. Guel-Contreras, 468

F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 414 F.3d 837, 845

(8th Cir. 2005)). To the extent Frencher challenges the District Court's credibility

findings, we see no clear error. See id. (standard of review).

On December 28, 2004, a uniformed Kansas City, Missouri, police officer,

Jennifer Jacobs-Weyrauch, and Jackson County, Missouri, Deputy Sheriff O'Sullivan,

in plainclothes, arrived at 4619 East 37th Street in Kansas City to serve an eviction

notice. They knocked on the door, but no one answered. Because they could hear and

see someone moving around inside the residence, the officers continued knocking,

explaining why they were there, and waited for several minutes. Eventually, a man

who was later identified as Frencher answered the door. When asked why he had

taken so long to answer, he replied that he had several outstanding warrants for his

arrest. Frencher stepped back into the residence, and the officers stepped inside.

Jacobs-Weyrauch then saw a baggie of marijuana on a coffee table about two feet

away. The officers promptly arrested and handcuffed Frencher and another man who

was there. After the arrest, they asked Frencher for his name and ran a computer

check, which confirmed that Frencher had three outstanding warrants for his arrest.

Also, O'Sullivan did a protective sweep of the residence and found a loaded handgun

in plain view.

While still inside, Frencher asked the officers if they would retrieve his coat

from the living room and give it to his girlfriend, who had arrived at the residence and

was outside. Before doing as Frencher asked, Jacobs-Weyrauch followed police

department protocol for officer safety and searched the coat that Frencher identified

as his, looking for weapons. Instead, she found a baggie of crack cocaine in a pocket

of the coat. Later, after a search warrant had been executed at the residence, Don

Stanze, a Kansas City, Missouri, police detective, interviewed Frencher, first advising

Appellate Case: 06-3533 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358881
2

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

-3-

him of his Miranda2

 rights, which Frencher said he understood (Frencher was no

stranger to the criminal justice system). During the interview, Frencher made selfincriminating statements.

Frencher entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possessing more than

fifty grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute. He reserved the right to appeal

the denial of his motion to suppress. In his motion, he alleged that the officers

violated his rights when they forced him to give his name, making any incriminating

evidence gathered after that point "fruit of the poisonous tree" that should be

suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). But the District

Court found that the officers did not ask Frencher to identify himself until after they

arrested him with probable cause (marijuana in plain view). The court concluded that

the officers acted lawfully throughout their encounter with Frencher and denied the

motion to suppress. Frencher appeals. We review the District Court's factual

findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Hyles, 479

F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir. 2007).

On appeal, Frencher argues that he was "unlawfully seized and questioned"

when the officers first asked him why he had taken so long to answer the door, then

entered the residence and "allegedly" saw marijuana in plain view. Br. of Appellant

at 13. According to Frencher, the officers "had no right to demand that the defendant

answer the door, or to interrogate him when he did so." Id. at 15. Frencher is

mistaken. Jacobs-Weyrauch and O'Sullivan arrived at 4619 East 37th Street to serve

an eviction notice, a lawful pursuit that entitled them to make contact with anyone

present in the residence and, indeed, to enter the residence. Soon after they first

knocked on the door, they knew someone was moving about inside, and they

continued knocking until the door was answered so they could complete their task.

Asking Frencher why he took so long to answer the door (hardly an interrogation) did

Appellate Case: 06-3533 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358881
-4-

not violate his Fourth Amendment rights; the length of time that it took Fletcher to

respond was a legitimate concern for the officers. In any event, Frencher was not

even asked to identify himself until after he had been arrested for possession of

marijuana. The officers' actions prior to the arrest did not constitute a detention that

required reasonable suspicion—and when they spotted the marijuana in plain view,

they had probable cause not only to detain Frencher but to arrest him. See United

States v. Tarantola, 332 F.3d 498, 500 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1066 (2003).

And because we hold that Jacobs-Weyrauch and O'Sullivan did not violate Frencher's

constitutional rights by asking him why it took so long for him to answer the door,

the second part of Frencher's claim on appeal is unavailing. The crack cocaine found

in Frencher's coat and his subsequent incriminating statements are not fruits of an

unlawful detention that must be excluded from evidence.

The order of the District Court denying Frencher's motion to suppress is

supported by substantial evidence and based on a correct view of the applicable law.

See Hyles, 479 F.3d at 965. We therefore affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3533 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/04/2007 Entry ID: 3358881