Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03725/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03725-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Faler
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3725

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James Faler

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: June 14, 2016

 Filed: August 9, 2016 

____________

Before MURPHY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and PERRY,1

 District Judge.

____________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

A grand jury indicted James Faler with five counts of production of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e), and 3559(e), and five counts

relating to the registered sex offender enhancement, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431 
§ 2260A. Faler moved to suppress child pornography evidence seized by the

government, but after the district court2

 denied the motion, Faler entered into a

conditional plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to

suppress. The district court3

 sentenced Faler to concurrent life imprisonment terms

on each of the five counts of production of child pornography and consecutive ten

year sentences on each of the five counts of failing to register as a sex offender,

resulting in a total sentence of life imprisonment plus 600 months consecutive. Faler

now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. 

I.

We discuss the facts as found by the district court. Autumn Centers, a leasing

consultant in Louisville, Kentucky, called 9-1-1 to report Faler was engaged in

suspicious activity. Centers told police that Faler was staying in the apartment of a

Churchill Park Apartments resident. Centers reported that Faler had been “messing

with the little kids that live around here,” was acting “awfully weird,” and had taken

a child into the apartment. She also stated another resident had a picture of Faler

“touching a little girl.” Centers stated she had conducted internet research and

determined Faler had been convicted of Iowa sex offenses and was a registered sex

offender. Centers requested that police remove Faler from the apartment complex

because he was not a registered resident, and Centers believed him to be a danger to

the children in the apartment complex. 

Three uniformed Louisville Police Officers responded to Centers’ call. After

verifying the information from her 9-1-1 call with Centers and confirming that Faler

2

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

3

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431 
was on the Iowa sex offender registry, officers proceeded to the ground-floor

apartment of Michael Parks, the resident with whom Faler was residing according to

Centers. 

Officer Jonathan Noe knocked on Parks’ door, and Parks answered. Parks told

an investigator with the public defender’s office that the officers “kind of pushed their

way through” and “just walked in.” Parks later testified under oath before a grand

jury, “They knocked on the door. I answered. They asked if I knew [Faler]. I said,

‘yes.’ They asked if [Faler] was here. I said, ‘yes,’ and started pointing to the room. 

By that time [Faler] had come out to meet them.” 

Officer Noe testified at the suppression hearing that after answering the door,

Parks initially denied Faler was in the apartment. As the officers continued talking

with Parks, Faler then stepped out from a back room and into the view of the officers. 

Although Officer Noe did not recall his exact words, he stated that based on his

training, he would have requested permission to enter the apartment. After that

request, Officer Noe testified Parks turned around, pointed to Faler, and stepped out

of the way. 

Officer Moss testified that while Parks hesitated when asked if he knew Faler,

he did admit to knowing him. After that inquiry, Faler came into the officers’ view,

and, according to Officer Moss, Officer Noe asked, “mind if we come in?” In

response, Parks opened the door wider, moved out of the way, and the officers entered

the apartment.4

 

4

The third officer testified that she was too far back in the hallway to hear the

conversation at the door or to observe Parks’ response to the other officers. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431 
Faler testified that he came out of a back room in the apartment after hearing

his name but that he did not hear the officers ask for permission to enter the apartment. 

He stated when the officers saw him, “they stepped in.” 

About 30 minutes after entering the apartment, officers determined that Faler

was in violation of his sex offender registration requirements, and they arrested Faler. 

As the officers were escorting Faler to the patrol car, Faler requested that the officers

retrieve his medication. Officer Moss asked where the medication was located, and

Faler directed him to a backpack in his bedroom. Officer Moss returned to the

apartment and retrieved the backpack. Pursuant to police department policy, Officer

Moss searched the backpack before placing it in the patrol car to assure that it did not

contain anything that could jeopardize officer safety. Officer Moss discovered

pictures of Faler “with little boys in compromising positions.” Officers then received

permission from Parks to search the remainder of the apartment, and officers seized

electronic equipment from the room where Faler had been staying. Detective Shawn

Hamilton later obtained a search warrant for the backpack and its contents, and he

discovered videos and images of Faler sexually abusing children stored on a 16

gigabyte thumb drive retrieved from the backpack. 

After the grand jury returned its indictment, Faler moved to suppress 

all evidence seized from his backpack including, but not limited to, all

photographs, prints of photographs, information obtained from his

laptop, and information obtained from a USB thumb drive, as well as to

suppress all statements made by him, and any other evidence derived

from the search of Mr. Faler’s backpack and his statements.

Mot. to Suppress, ECF No. 43. Faler alleged that the unconstitutional entry into the

apartment and his unconstitutional arrest led to statements he made, the discovery of

the materials in his backpack, and the issuance of a search warrant for his laptop

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431 
computer and thumb drive which resulted in the officers locating the child

pornography images. 

Crediting the testimony of the officers, the district court found that officers

made a verbal request to enter the apartment, and in response, “Parks implicitly

consented to the officers’ entry by gesturing towards [Faler] and stepping aside as a

gesture communicating consent to enter.” (Order at 9.) Alternatively, the court held

that even if officers’ entry into the apartment ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment,

seizure of Faler’s backpack was sufficiently attenuated from the entry such that the

exclusionary rule would not apply. The court held Faler’s request that officers

retrieve his backpack, after Faler was arrested and was being taken to the patrol car,

was a significant intervening circumstance interrupting any taint from an illegal entry

into the apartment. 

II.

Faler appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officers’

entry into the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment and, as a result, the items

seized from his backpack, including the evidence discovered in the execution of the

search warrant, should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Specifically, Faler

argues that “[b]ut for the unconstitutional arrest of Mr. Faler, his backpack would not

have been searched incident to that arrest and the printouts would not have been

found. But for finding the printouts, Detective Hamilton would not have been able to

obtain a warrant to search the backpack, laptop, USB drive and other materials.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 25. 

When reviewing a district court’s suppression determination, we review the

court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States

v. Johnson, 619 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2010). Whether Parks granted consent for the

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431 
officers to enter is a question of fact, which we review for clear error. United States

v. Jones, 254 F.3d 692, 695 (8th Cir. 2001). 

“Absent consent or exigent circumstances, a private home may not be entered

to conduct a search or effect an arrest without a warrant.” Donovan v. Dewey, 452

U.S. 594, 598 n.6 (1981). Officers may enter the residence if the officers receive

voluntary consent to enter from a person possessing authority over the residence. 

United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2006). “Voluntary consent

may be express or implied.” Id. In determining whether Parks gave implied consent, 

“[t]he precise question is not whether [Parks] consented subjectively, but whether his

conduct would have caused a reasonable person to believe that he consented.” Jones,

254 F.3d at 695. 

Faler argues the district court’s finding that Parks gave implied consent was

clearly erroneous based on his testimony and Parks’ statements to the public defender

investigator. Also, Faler claims “the more logical conclusion is that the officers

immediately went towards Mr. Faler to arrest him, rather than taking the time to ask

Mr. Parks if they could enter.” Appellant’s Br. at 20. The district court did not clearly

err in finding Parks gave implied consent to enter the apartment to confront Faler. 

The court credited the testimony of Officers Noe and Moss that when Faler exited a

room in the back of the apartment and came into the officers’ view, Parks motioned

towards Faler and stepped aside so that the officers could enter the apartment. The

district court’s credibility determinations are entitled to great deference. See United

States v. Gregory, 302 F.3d 805, 811 (8th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, we have held

gestures and actions like those made by Parks constituted implied consent in similar

encounters. See United States v. Smith, 973 F.2d 1374, 1376 (8th Cir. 1992)

(implying consent when the defendant’s wife stepped aside and motioned for officers

to enter); United States v. Turbyfill, 525 F.2d 57, 59 (8th Cir. 1975) (implying consent

when the defendant’s wife opened the door and stepped back to let officers enter); see

also United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir. 2002) (implicit

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431 
consent to enter trailer found based on testimony that the defendant’s body language

indicated that he yielded the right of way to the officers). Finally, Faler’s “more

logical conclusion” argument is conjecture and does not demonstrate clear error on the

part of the district court. 

III.

Having determined that the district court did not clearly err in finding the

officers’ entry into the apartment was gained from Parks’ implicit consent, the

subsequent seizure of the backpack and discovery of its contents is not fruit of the

poisonous tree. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Faler’s motion

to suppress. 

______________________________

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-3725 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 Entry ID: 4435431