FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble B . Avant Edenfield, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Georg ia, sitting by

designation. [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12004

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 09 -C R -B B M -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O H N N Y L . H O L M E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 18, 2008) B ef ore H U L L and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and E D E N F IE L D , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:“A district cour t’s rulingon a motion to suppress presents a mix ed question of law and 1 fac t.” United States v. Z apata , 180 F.3d 1237, 1240 ( 11th Cir. 1999). We acc ept the district c ourt ’sfac tual f

inding s a s tr

ueunle ss t

hefinding s a

resh own tobec le arly

erron e ou s. I d. Al l fac ts are c onstrued in the light most favorableto the prevailing par ty below. United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F .3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). The district c ourt’s application of the law to the fac ts is reviewe d de novo. Z apata , 180 F.3d at 1240. 2 J o h n n y L . H o lm e s , w h o e n te r e d ac o n d itio n a l g u ilty p le ato b e in g af e lo n in po ss es si on of a f

i re arm , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g), appeal s the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s e v id e n c e f o u n d d u r in g as e a r c h o f h is ap a r tm e n t, a s w e ll a s h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s s u b s e q u e n t s ta te m e n ts to in v e s tig a to r s . A fterre v iew an do ra l arg u m en t, w e v ac ate th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f H o lm es ’s m ot i on s t o sup pres s a nd re m and the ca se t o the di stri ctcourtfor f urther co n si d erat i o n o f th o se m o t i o n s. 1 O n ap p e a l, H o lm e s f

ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m ot i ons t o s uppr e s s be c a us e the pol i c e ha d no r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on t o go t o a nd be a t h is ap a r tm e n t a t a ll a n d h e w a s ille g a lly s e iz e d b e f o r e h e c o n s e n te d to th e s e a r c h . W e r ej ec tthi s c l ai m and con cl ud e thatH ol m es has notes t abl i shed an i l l egal s e i z ur e . T he e vi de nc e , a m ong othe rthi ngs , s how e d tha tthe of f i c e r s r e c e i ve d a c r e di bl e t i p tha tape r s on the y w e r e l ooki ng f or , na m e d T abor i s C l e m m ons , m i ght be hi di ng i n H ol m es ’ s apartm ent . T hati nform at i on ca m e f rom a w om an w ho l i ved w ith C le m m o n s a n d r e p o rte d h im to th e p o lic e f o rh a v in g th r e a te n e d h e rju v e n ile daug ht er . S he al so t ol d the offi ce rs thatC l em m on s w as arm ed and a m em ber of a3

s tr e e tga ng. T he of

f i c e r s knoc ke d l oudl y on the doorof H ol m e s ’ s apa r tm e nt , a nd H ol m e s e ve ntua l l y ope ne d the door . H ol m e s f a c e d the of

f i c e r s , w ho ha d w e apons dr a w n. O ne of

f i c e rkne w w ha tC l e m m ons l ooke d l i ke , kne w H ol m e s w a s not C l em m on s, and q ui ckl y t ol d the other off i ce rs . O nce the offi ce rs un ders t oo d that H ol m e s w a s notC l e m m ons , the y l ow e r e d orr e hol s t e r e d the i rf i r e a rm s . O ne of f i c e rdi r e c t e d H ol m e s t o s t e p out s i de the doora nd puthi s ha nd on H ol m e s a s he l e d hi m outof

the apa r tm e nti nt o the ha l l w a y . T he of f i c e r s the n a s ke d H ol m e s f or perm i ss i on t o sea rc h the apartm ent . H ol m es consent ed, and the offi ce rs di sc ov er ed a f i re arm i n p l ai n si gh ti nsi de. V i ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm ent , the po l i ce had re as o n ab le su sp icio n to b eliev e th at th e m an th ey w er e lo o k in g fo r w as at H o lm es ’s apa r tm e nt , a nd the r e w a s no i l l e ga l s e i z ur e of H ol m e s i n hi s doorw a y . T he d e te n tio n w a s v e ry b r ie f , a n d w ith th e f

a c ts v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, th e s e iz u r e w a s r e a s o n ab le u n d e rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H o lm e s n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n s to s uppr e s s be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our t , i n e va l ua t i ng w he the rhi s c ons e ntt o s e a r c h the apa r tm e ntw a s vol unt a ry , e rr one ous l y f a i l e d t o c ons i de rhi s c us t odi a l s t a tus a tthe t i m e he ga ve c ons e nt . “ S e a r c he s c onduc t e d by m e a ns of c ons e nta r e va l i d s o l ong a s th e c o n s e n t is v o lu n ta ry .” U n ite d S ta te s v . K ap p e rm a n , 7 6 4 F .2 d 7 8 6 , 7 9 3 ( 1 1 th4

C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . H e r e , H o lm e s d o e s n o t d is p u te th a t h e g a v e c o n s e n t to s e a r c h h is h o m e ; h e o n ly d is p u te s w h e th e rh is c o n s e n t w a s v o lu n ta ry .

“ W hether a n i nd i vi du al ’ s c on se ntt o a w arra nt l es s s ea rc h w as gi ven vol unt a r i l y i s aque s t i on of f a c ttha tm us tbe de c i de d i n l i ghtof the t ot a l i ty of

the c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G o n z a le z , 7 1 F .3 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . R el evantfa ct ors i n d et erm i ni ng vo l un t ar i ness , no ne of w hi ch i s di sposi t i ve, i ncl ud e: (1) the vo l un t ar i ness of the defendant ’ s c ust od i al st atus; (2) the pres ence o f c o er civ e p o li ce p ro ce d u re ; (3 ) th e e x ten t an d lev el o f th e d ef en d an t’ s c o o p e r a tio n w ith p o lic e ; ( 4 ) th e d e f e n d a n t’s a w a r e n e s s o f

h is r ig h t to r e f

u s e to c ons e ntt o the s e a r c h; ( 5) the de f e nda nt ’ s e duc a t i on a nd i nt e l l i ge nc e ; a nd ( 6) the de f e nda nt ’ s be l i e f

tha tno i nc r i m i na t i ng e vi de nc e w i l l be f ound. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C he m a l y , 741 F . 2d 1346, 1352 ( 11th C i r . 1984) , r e i ns t a t e d on r e h’ g, 764 F . 2d 747 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( e n ba nc ) . “ W hi l e know l e dge of the r i ghtt o r e f

us e c ons e nti s one f a c t ort o be t a ke n i nt o a c c ount , the gove rnm e ntne e d note s t abl i s h s uc h know l e dge a s th e s i n e q u an o n o f

a n e f f e c t i v e c o n s e n t . ” Sc h n e c k l o th v . Bu s t a mo n t e , 4 1 2 U . S. 218, 227, 93 S . C t . 2041, 2048 ( 1973) . “ T he gove rnm e ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng . . . tha tthe c ons e ntw a s notaf unc t i on of

a c qui e s c e nc e t o ac l a i m of l a w f ul a u th o r ity b u t r a th e rw a s g iv e n f r e e ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily .” U n ite d S ta te s v . H id a lg o , 7 F . 3d 15 66 , 15 71 (11th C i r. 19 93 ).Nothing herein is meant to sug g est that the district court must cha ng e its ruling on the 2 motion s tosu

pp re ss. 5 A s t o the vo l un t ar i ness of H ol m es ’ s c on se nt , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y l i st ed and con si dere d fac t ors ( 2) throu gh (6) not ed abov e. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourt concl ud ed thatfa ct or (1) w as re l evanton l y i n cas es i nv ol vi ng consentt o sea rc h pu bl i c a re as and n otre l evantt o a se ar ch of on e’ s hom e, and thu s the di stri ctcourt di d notc ons i de rthi s f

a c t or . I n thi s r e ga r d, the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d, be c a us e f a c t or ( 1 ) is r e le v a n t, a n d th e to ta lityo f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g th e c o n s e n t s h o u ld b e c o n s id e r e d . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R a m ir e z - C h ile l, 2 8 9 F .3 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 2 - 5 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2002) ; G onz a l e z , 71 F . 3d a t829; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 890 F . 2d 355, 361- 62 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E s pi nos a - O r l a ndo, 704 F . 2d 507, 513 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o c ons i de rone of the r e l e va ntf

a c t or s , a nd the di s tr i c tc our the a r d the e vi de nc e f r om the C l a y t on C ounty of f i c e r s , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti s i n the be s tpos i t i on t o m a ke f i ndi ngs abouttha tf

a c t ora nd th e n c o n s id e rit, a lo n g w ith th e o th e rf a c to r s n o te d ab o v e , in e v a lu a tin g th e to ta lity of the ci rc um st ance s her e. 2 A cco rd i n g l y, w e v acat e th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f th e m o t i o n s t o su p p ress a n d r e m a n d th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rf u r th e rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

w h e th e r , in l i ghtof the t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , H ol m e s vol unt a r i l y c ons e nt e d t o the6

s e a r c h o f h is ap a r tm e n t. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.