# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 32 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo se ph Fran k M ei de l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 9, 2 01 4
Fil ed : Au gu st 21 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Jo se ph Fran k Mei de l pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of

a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 1

The Hon o r a b l e Bet h Ph il li ps , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1
Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le Mat t J. Whit wor th , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.27 m on th s’ i m pr is on m en t. On ap pe al , M ei de l ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l

of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce o f th e fi rear m fo un d on hi s pers on at th e ti m e of

arre st

. Bec au se ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces pe rm it te d la w e n f o r cem en t’s en tra nc e on to

Mei de l’s p ro pe rty, we affir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In earl y Ju ly 20 12

, Mi s s o u r i St at e Hig hwa y Pat ro l (MS HP) Serg ean t Ja so n
Cl ark r ecei ve d se ve ral co m pl ai nt s fro m Mei de l’s ne ig hb or s th at he ha d be en fir in g

gu ns in th e di rect io n of ne arb y ho us es

. Serg ean t Cl ark co nd uc te d a ba ck gr ou nd

ch eck

, whi ch rev eal ed Mei de l was a co nv ic te d fel on

. Dur in g hi s in ve st ig at io n, Serg ean t Cl ark al so le arn ed Mei d e l ’s g irl fri en d ha d pu rch as ed a gu n at a ne arb y

co n ve ni en ce st or e an d Mei de l ha d bo ug ht 9m m am m un it io n on two se pa rat e

oc cas io ns ; th e co nv en ie nc e st or e m an ag er id en ti fie d Mei de l fro m a ph ot o li ne up

. Ano th er co nv en ie nc e st or e em pl oyee de sc rib ed an in ci de nt w h e r e M ei de l, aft er

co nf ro nt in g t he em

pl oyee, li fte d u p h is sh irt to di sp la y th e h an dl e o f a p is to l.

On Ju ly 30

, 20 12

, S e r g e an t Cl ark an d MSHP Serg ean t Eric Eid so n were in

Mei de l’s ne ig hb or ho od lo ok in g in to a su sp ic io us ve hi cl e ob se rv ed in th e area

. W hi le

can va ss in g th e ne ig hb or ho od

, th e se rg ean ts ap pr oa ch ed Mei de l to as k if he ha d se en
th e ve hi cl e. He an d hi s gi rlf rie nd were in th ei r fro nt y ard

, whi ch was su rro un de d by

a ch ai n li nk fen ce. Serg ean t Cl ark te st ifi ed he ad va nc ed cau ti ou sl y gi ve n hi s on go in g
in ve st ig at io n an d rep or ts th at Mei de l of te n carr ie d a gu n. The two se rg ean ts

id en ti fie d th em se lv es as l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers . At th e ti m e o f th e co nv ers at io n,
Mei de l was st an di ng ap pr ox im at el y 3– 5 fe et fro m

th e fen ce, n ear a lar ge du m ps te r.
The se rg ean ts were st an di ng ne ar th e ro ad way , on t h e pu bl ic si de of th e fen ce.
Mei de l was po li te an d fo rth co m in g du rin g th e co nv ers at io n, ex pl ai ni ng he ha d in fact

se en th e v eh ic le in th e n ei gh bo rh oo d.

-2

-Afte r th e co nv e r s a t i on en de d, Mei de l tu rn ed aro un d an d walk ed to ward th e

ho us e. The two of

fic ers sa w wha t ap pe ared to be a se m i-a ut om at ic ha nd gu n tu ck ed

pa rti al ly in to Mei de l’s pa nt s in th e sm al l of hi s ba ck

. Serg ean t Eid so n as ke d Mei de l

if he ha d a gu n; he res po nd ed it was a pe ll et gu n. Serg ean t Eid so n te st ifi ed th at as

so on as he as ke d ab ou t th e gu n, Mei de l’s de m ean or ch an ge d. Mei de l al so co nt in ue d

m ov in g to ward th e ho us e, whi ch wou ld ha ve pl aced hi m be hi nd th e du m ps te r. As

S e r ge an t Eid so n ex pl ai ne d, Mei de l “ co ul d ha ve us ed th at du m ps te r fo r ex cel l e n t

co ve r,” whi le th e se rg ean ts “w ere ou t in th e m id dl e of no whe re.” Serg ean t Cl ark

as ke d if he was Jo se ph Mei de l; Mei de l co nf irmed he was

. Ser g e a n t Ei ds on th en
in fo rm ed Mei de l t ha t h e was un de r arre st

.

Acco rd in g to th e se rg ean ts

, Mei de l co nt in ue d walk in g away. He th en reac he d

aro un d hi s ba ck to ward hi s fir earm

. In r e s p o n s e , th e se rg ean ts un ho ls te red th ei r

weap on s an d or de red Mei d e l to th e gr ou nd

. Mei de l di d no t co m pl y , an d Serg ean t

Eid so n jum

pe d th e fen ce. Serg ean t Cl ark fo ll owe d, br ou gh t Mei de l to hi s kn ees , an d

ha ndc uf fe d him

. Se rg ea

nt Eid so n reco ve red a se m i-a ut om at ic ha nd gu n fr om Me ide l’ s
wais tb an d. Bas ed on th e gu n an d Serg ean t Cl ark ’s pr io r in ve st ig at io n, Serg ean t Cl ark

ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt for Mei de l’s ho m e. In si de , l aw en fo rcem en t fo un d 9m m
bu ll et s an d a m ag azi ne co nt ai ni ng ad di ti on al am m un it io n.

On Aug us t 29

, 20 12

, Mei de l was in di ct ed on on e co u n t o f b e i ng a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Mei de l m ov ed to su pp res s th e ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng th e gu n

an d am m un it io n, ob ta in ed fro m hi s pe rs on an d hi s res id en ce. He arg ue d th e ev id en ce

was th e fru it of an un co ns ti tu ti on al se arch an d se iz ur e. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e

m ot io n. Mei de l pl ed gu il ty to th e of fen se an d th e co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 27 m on th s’

im pr is on men t

, t he lo wer en d of hi s ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. As pa rt of hi s pl ea,
ho wev er, Mei de l res erv ed th e rig ht to ch al le ng e th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s.

-3

-II . Dis cus si on

On ap pe al

, Mei de l arg ue s th e se rg ean ts vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht

to be free fro m un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es whe n th ey en te red hi s fro nt y ard

aft er ob se rv in g hi m carr y in g a fir earm

. “ In r e v i e w in g a de ni al of a m ot io n to

su pp res s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l de te rm in at io ns fo r cl ear erro r an d it s
le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Qui nt ero -Fel ix

, 71 4 F.3 d 56 3, 56 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ). “ W e wil l affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t u n l e s s th e de ni al of th e m ot io n is

un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d on an erro ne ou s in te rp ret at io n of th e la w,

or , ba se d on th e en ti re reco rd

, it is cl ear t h a t a mi st ak e was m ad e.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

“ It is a ba si c pr in ci pl e of Fo ur th Am en dm en t la w th at se arch es a n d s e i z ur es
in si de a ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt are pr es um pt iv el y un reas on a b l e .” Payton v. New

Yor k, 44 5 U.S. 57 3, 58 6 (1 98 0) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ [T]he Fo ur th Am en dm en t ha s
dr awn a fi rm

li ne at t he en tra nc e to th e h ou se .” Id . at 5 90 . The Su pr em e Co ur t h as
fu rth er cl ari fie d th at su ch Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n “ wou ld be of li tt le pr act ic al

va lu e if th e St at e’s ag en ts co ul d st an d in a ho m e’s po rch or si de ga rd en an d tra wl fo r

ev id en ce wit h i mp u n i t y.” F lo rid a v. Ja rd in es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 14 09

, 14 14 (2 01 3)

. “ W e
th eref or e reg ard th e area im m ed ia t e l y su rro un di ng an d as so ci at ed wit h th e
ho m e—wh at ou r cas es c al l th e cu rti la ge —as pa rt of th e ho m e it se lf fo r Fo ur th

Am en dm en t pu rp os es .” Id

. (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Dun n, 48 0

U.S. 2 94 , 3 01 (1 98 7) (d et ai li ng fo ur fact or s to co n s i d e r w he n de te rm in in g whe th er

an area is cu rti la ge ).

W e as su m e, wit ho ut de ci di ng , th at Mei de l’s fen ced -in fro nt y ard co ns ti tu te d

cu rti la ge su bjec t to Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io n. Reg ard le ss of su ch co ns ti tu ti on al

pr ot ect io n, ho wev er, “ [a]n ex cep ti on to th e warra nt req ui rem en t pe rm it s an of fic er to

en te r a ho m e if h e o r s h e act s wit h pr ob ab le cau se in th e pr es en ce of ex ig en t

ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d St at es v. Sch m id t, 40 3 F.3 d 10 09

, 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Thi s

-4

-is an ob

jecti ve in qu iry, whi ch as ks “ wha t an ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le of

fic er on t he

sc en e co ul d ha ve b e l i e v e d

. ” I d. No on e di sp ut es th at th e MSHP se rg ean ts ha d

p ro ba bl e cau se in th is cas e: th ey were sp eak in g to so m eo ne who co nf irmed h e w a s
Mei de l; gi ve n Serg ean t Cl ark ’s on go in g in ve st ig a t i o n , he kn ew Mei de l was a

co nv ic te d fel on ; an d bo th se rg ean ts sa w wha t l o ok ed li ke a gu n tu ck ed in to hi s
wais tb a n d

. Mei de l’s di sh on es t as se rti on th at it was a pe ll et gu n di d no t un de rm in e
th e se rg ean ts ’ pr ob ab le cau se

.

The on ly qu es ti on on ap pe al th en is whe th er th ere were ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

pe rm it ti ng th e se rg ean ts to en te r th e cu rti la ge of Mei de l’s ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt

.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e ul ti m at e co nc lu si on th at th e hi st or ic a l f a c t s a m ou nt ed to

ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces .” Id

. Exi ge nt ci rcu m st an ces , su ch as th e sa fet y of of fic ers an d

ot he rs , m ay jus ti fy a warra nt le ss arre st in on e’s ho m e. See Uni te d St at es v. Kue ns tl er,

32 5 F.3 d 1 0 1 5

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ Exi ge nt ci rcu m st an ces ex is t whe re la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers ha ve a le gi ti m at e c on cern fo r th e sa fet y of th em se lv es or

ot he rs .” (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ).

Und er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , it was reas on ab le fo r th e se rg ean ts to

be li ev e Mei de l po se d a da ng er— bo th to th em se lv es an d to o t h e rs —t ha t co ul d be

ne ut ral iz ed by en te rin g th e pr em is es to se cu re bo t h M e i d e l a nd th e gu n. Mei de l, a

co nv ic te d fe lo n, was in po ss es si on of wha t lo ok ed li ke a gu n. Mo re th an th at , her e
th e of fic ers ha d m ad e th ei r pr es en ce an d s u s p i c i o n of Mei de l’s il le ga l po ss es si on
kn own

. The y as ke d ab ou t th e gu n an d co nf irmed h i s id en ti ty. Alt ho ug h bo th

se rg ean ts ack no wled ge d Mei de l was in it ia ll y co rd ia l whe n sp eak i n g t o t he m , Serg ean t Eid so n ex pl ai ne d Mei de l’s de m ean or ch an ge d as so on as he as ke d ab ou t th e

gu n. Mei de l co nt in ue d to m ov e to ward th e du m ps te r, whi ch wou ld ha ve sh ie ld ed hi m
fro m di rect vi ew. Serg ean t Cl ark ha d a ls o re cei ve d s ev eral rep or ts th at Mei de l h ad

di s c ha rg ed a weap on ne ar hi s ho m e, whi ch wou ld ha ve he ig ht en ed co nc ern th at

Mei de l wou ld us e th e gu n in hi s po ss es si on

. A reas on ab le of fic er, whe n face d wit h

th es e ci rcu m st an ces , wou ld ha ve ha d le gi ti m at e co nc ern s fo r hi s sa fet y an d th e sa fet y

-5

-o f ot he rs to jus ti fy en te rin g Mei de l’s y ard to arre st hi m an d se cu re th e gu n. S e e

Uni te d Stat es v. Ball

, 90 F.3 d 26 0, 26 3 (8 th Cir . 19 96 ) (“ It wou ld be reas on ab le fo r

. . . an of f i c e r to be li ev e th at th e pr es en ce of an arm ed su sp ect in si de th e ho us e

pr es en te d a th reat to th e li ve s o f th e o ffi cers ou ts id e.”).

Mei de l p oi nt s o ut th at ex ig en t circ um st an ces can no t be m an uf act ur ed by law

en fo rcem en t. Ken tu ck y v. Kin g, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 49

, 18 62 (2 0 1 1 ) (“ [T]he ex ig en t

c i r c u m st an ces ru le ap pl ie s whe n th e po li ce do no t ga in en try t o pr em is es by me a n s
of an act ua l or th reat en ed vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.”)

. The Su pr em e Co ur t

in Kin g em

ph as iz ed th at “ th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ru le jus ti fie s a warra nt le ss se arch

whe n th e co nd uc t o f t h e p o li ce pr eced in g th e ex ig en cy is reas on ab le ” wit hi n th e

m ean in g o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Id . at 1 85 8.

Mei de l cl ai m s th e se rg ean ts crea te d th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces by th reat en in g

to il le ga ll y en te r th e fro nt y ard an d pl ace hi m un de r arre st

. Acco rd in g to Mei de l, he

di d no t reach be hi nd hi s ba ck to ward th e gu n un ti l th e of fic ers th reat en ed to m ak e a

warra nt le ss arre st

. Eve n if w e c r e d i t th is arg um en t, we ne ed no t ho ld to Mei de l’s

na rro w vi ew of th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

. Befo re Serg ean t Eid so n to ld Mei de l he

was un de r arre st

, th e se rg ean ts reas on ab ly be li ev ed Mei de l was a fel on wit h a gu n on
hi s pe rs on an d m ad e th ei r su sp ic io ns kn own to Mei de l. N e i g hb or s ha d pr ev io us ly

rep or te d M e i d e l d i s c h arg in g a gu n, an d he was ne ar a du m ps te r th at co ul d pr ov id e

co ve r sh ou ld he be gi n sh oo ti ng

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng

ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d th e se rg ean ts ’ warra nt le ss en try on to Mei de l’s

pr op ert y

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-