United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3251

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joseph Frank Meidel

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________

 Submitted: June 9, 2014

 Filed: August 21, 2014

____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Joseph Frank Meidel pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 1

The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Matt

J. Whitworth, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
27 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Meidel challenges the district court’s denial

of his motion to suppress evidence of the firearm found on his person at the time of

arrest. Because exigent circumstances permitted law enforcement’s entrance onto

Meidel’s property, we affirm.

I. Background

In early July 2012, Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) Sergeant Jason

Clark received several complaints from Meidel’s neighbors that he had been firing

guns in the direction of nearby houses. Sergeant Clark conducted a background

check, which revealed Meidel was a convicted felon. During his investigation,

Sergeant Clark also learned Meidel’s girlfriend had purchased a gun at a nearby

convenience store and Meidel had bought 9mm ammunition on two separate

occasions; the convenience store manager identified Meidel from a photo lineup. 

Another convenience store employee described an incident where Meidel, after

confronting the employee, lifted up his shirt to display the handle of a pistol.

On July 30, 2012, Sergeant Clark and MSHP Sergeant Eric Eidson were in

Meidel’s neighborhood looking into a suspicious vehicle observed in the area. While

canvassing the neighborhood, the sergeants approached Meidel to ask if he had seen

the vehicle. He and his girlfriend were in their front yard, which was surrounded by

a chain link fence. Sergeant Clark testified he advanced cautiously given his ongoing

investigation and reports that Meidel often carried a gun. The two sergeants

identified themselves as law enforcement officers. At the time of the conversation,

Meidel was standing approximately 3–5 feet from the fence, near a large dumpster. 

The sergeants were standing near the roadway, on the public side of the fence. 

Meidel was polite and forthcoming during the conversation, explaining he had in fact

seen the vehicle in the neighborhood.

-2-
After the conversation ended, Meidel turned around and walked toward the

house. The two officers saw what appeared to be a semi-automatic handgun tucked

partially into Meidel’s pants in the small of his back. Sergeant Eidson asked Meidel

if he had a gun; he responded it was a pellet gun. Sergeant Eidson testified that as

soon as he asked about the gun, Meidel’s demeanor changed. Meidel also continued

moving toward the house, which would have placed him behind the dumpster. As

Sergeant Eidson explained, Meidel “could have used that dumpster for excellent

cover,” while the sergeants “were out in the middle of nowhere.” Sergeant Clark

asked if he was Joseph Meidel; Meidel confirmed he was. Sergeant Eidson then

informed Meidel that he was under arrest. 

According to the sergeants, Meidel continued walking away. He then reached

around his back toward his firearm. In response, the sergeants unholstered their

weapons and ordered Meidel to the ground. Meidel did not comply, and Sergeant

Eidson jumped the fence. Sergeant Clark followed, brought Meidel to his knees, and

handcuffed him. Sergeant Eidson recovered a semi-automatic handgun fromMeidel’s

waistband. Based on the gun and Sergeant Clark’s prior investigation, Sergeant Clark

obtained a search warrant for Meidel’s home. Inside, law enforcement found 9mm

bullets and a magazine containing additional ammunition.

On August 29, 2012, Meidel was indicted on one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. Meidel moved to suppress the evidence, including the gun

and ammunition, obtained fromhis person and his residence. He argued the evidence

was the fruit of an unconstitutional search and seizure. The district court denied the

motion. Meidel pled guilty to the offense and the court sentenced him to 27 months’

imprisonment, the lower end of his advisory guideline range. As part of his plea,

however, Meidel reserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress.

-3-
II. Discussion

On appeal, Meidel argues the sergeants violated his Fourth Amendment right

to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they entered his front yard

after observing him carrying a firearm. “In reviewing a denial of a motion to

suppress, we review the district court’s factual determinations for clear error and its

legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Quintero-Felix, 714 F.3d 563, 567 (8th

Cir. 2013). “We will affirm the district court unless the denial of the motion is

unsupported by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of the law,

or, based on the entire record, it is clear that a mistake was made.” Id. (quotation

omitted).

“It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures

inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v. New

York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980) (quotation omitted). “[T]he Fourth Amendment has

drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.” Id. at 590. The Supreme Court has

further clarified that such Fourth Amendment protection “would be of little practical

value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for

evidence with impunity.” Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013). “We

therefore regard the area immediately surrounding and associated with the

home—what our cases call the curtilage—as part of the home itself for Fourth

Amendment purposes.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Dunn, 480

U.S. 294, 301 (1987) (detailing four factors to consider when determining whether

an area is curtilage). 

We assume, without deciding, that Meidel’s fenced-in front yard constituted

curtilage subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Regardless ofsuch constitutional

protection, however, “[a]n exception to the warrant requirement permits an officer to

enter a home if he or she acts with probable cause in the presence of exigent

circumstances.” United States v. Schmidt, 403 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2005). This

-4-
is an objective inquiry, which asks “what an objectively reasonable officer on the

scene could have believed.” Id. No one disputes that the MSHP sergeants had

probable cause in this case: they were speaking to someone who confirmed he was

Meidel; given Sergeant Clark’s ongoing investigation, he knew Meidel was a

convicted felon; and both sergeants saw what looked like a gun tucked into his

waistband. Meidel’s dishonest assertion that it was a pellet gun did not undermine

the sergeants’ probable cause.

The only question on appeal then is whether there were exigent circumstances

permitting the sergeants to enter the curtilage of Meidel’s home without a warrant. 

“We review de novo the ultimate conclusion that the historical facts amounted to

exigent circumstances.” Id. Exigent circumstances, such asthe safety of officers and

others, may justify a warrantless arrest in one’s home. See United States v. Kuenstler,

325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Exigent circumstances exist where law

enforcement officers have a legitimate concern for the safety of themselves or

others.” (quotation omitted)).

Under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the sergeants to

believe Meidel posed a danger—both to themselves and to others—that could be

neutralized by entering the premises to secure both Meidel and the gun. Meidel, a

convicted felon, was in possession of what looked like a gun. More than that, here

the officers had made their presence and suspicion of Meidel’s illegal possession

known. They asked about the gun and confirmed his identity. Although both

sergeants acknowledged Meidel was initially cordial when speaking to them,

Sergeant Eidson explained Meidel’s demeanor changed assoon as he asked about the

gun. Meidel continued to move toward the dumpster, which would have shielded him

from direct view. Sergeant Clark had also received several reports that Meidel had

discharged a weapon near his home, which would have heightened concern that

Meidel would use the gun in his possession. A reasonable officer, when faced with

these circumstances, would have had legitimate concerns for his safety and the safety

-5-
of others to justify entering Meidel’s yard to arrest him and secure the gun. See

United States v. Ball, 90 F.3d 260, 263 (8th Cir. 1996) (“It would be reasonable for

. . . an officer to believe that the presence of an armed suspect inside the house

presented a threat to the lives of the officers outside.”).

Meidel points out that exigent circumstances cannot be manufactured by law

enforcement. Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1862 (2011) (“[T]he exigent

circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means

of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.”). The Supreme Court

in King emphasized that “the exigent circumstancesrule justifies a warrantlesssearch

when the conduct of the police preceding the exigency is reasonable” within the

meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1858.

Meidel claims the sergeants created the exigent circumstances by threatening

to illegally enter the front yard and place him under arrest. According to Meidel, he

did not reach behind his back toward the gun until the officers threatened to make a

warrantless arrest. Even if we credit this argument, we need not hold to Meidel’s

narrow view of the exigent circumstances. Before Sergeant Eidson told Meidel he

was under arrest, the sergeants reasonably believed Meidel was a felon with a gun on

his person and made their suspicions known to Meidel. Neighbors had previously

reported Meidel discharging a gun, and he was near a dumpster that could provide

cover should he begin shooting. Consequently, the district court did not err in finding

exigent circumstances justified the sergeants’ warrantless entry onto Meidel’s

property. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-6-