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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 13 53

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

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.

Trav is Mi ch ael Co ll in s

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 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 12
Fil ed : No ve m

be r 14 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and JACKS ON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Trav is Co ll in s co nd it io na ll y pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a

fir earm an d am

m un it io n an d no w ap pe al s th e d e n i al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s th at

ev id en ce, di sc ov ered in a ba g ne ar whe re he was arre s t e d b y o f fic ers ex ecu ti ng a

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern *

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.pa ro le vi ol at io n arre st warra nt

. Co ll in s arg ue s th e of fic ers un la wfu ll y en te red a ho m e

an d pr oc eed ed to th e be dr oo m whe re he was s t a yi ng wit ho ut th e va li d co ns en t of a

th ird pa rty, th e dwe ll in g’s te na nt

, Kris ta St oe ke l. Rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1

fin di ng of vo lu nt ary co ns en t fo r cl ear erro r, we affi rm

. See Uni te d St at es v. Dup ree,

20 2 F .3d 10 46 , 10 49 -5 0 (8 th Cir . 20 00 ) (s ta nd ard of r ev ie w).

Offi cers Lan ce W ig na ll an d Kim S mi t h de sc rib ed th e ci rcu m st an ces

su rro un di ng Co ll in s’s arres t at a su pp res si on he ari ng

. W ig na ll te st ifi ed he was to ld
by a rel ia bl e so ur ce th at Co ll in s was s t a yi n g wit h so m eo ne at a res id en ce in Des

Mo in es

. W ig na ll an d ot he r of fic ers wen t to th e ho m e to ex ecu te an ou ts ta nd in g

warra nt for Co ll in s’s ar res t. W ig na ll an d ano th er offi cer kn oc ke d on th e fro nt do or

se ve ral ti m es

. No on e an swe red

. The y walk ed to th e rear whe re a m an cam e ou t of

a ba ck sh ed

, sa id he own ed th e pr op ert y , id en ti fie d St oe ke l as th e ho us e’s te na nt

, an d

whe n sh own a pi ct ur e of Co ll in s sa id he ha d be en th ere rece nt ly. The of fic ers

ret ur ne d to th e fro nt do o r an d res um ed kn oc ki ng

. Afte r se ve ral m in ut es , St oe ke l

cam e to th e do or

. W ig na ll sa id he ne ed ed to ta lk to Trav is Co ll in s an d sh owe d

St oe ke l a p ic tu re o f Co ll in s. Sh e d en ie d k no win g h im . Wig na ll sa id th at he wou ld

li ke to st ep in to m ak e su re Co ll in s was no t th ere. St oe ke l res po nd ed

, “ No, I do n’t

wan t y ou to do th at

. ” Wi g n a ll sa id

, “ I ha ve reas on to be li ev e th at he ’s he re, an d I

wou ld li ke to se arch y ou r res id en ce.” St oe ke l sa id

, “ No, I do n’t wan t th at to ha pp en .”

W ig na ll th en as ke d if he c ou ld st ep in an d qu es ti on St oe ke l ab ou t Co ll in s.

St oe ke l op en ed th e do or an d sa id

, “Yo u c a n go no fu rth er th an th e li vi ng ro om .”

In si de

, W ig na ll a g ai n sh owe d St oe ke l th e pi ct ur e of Co ll in s. Sh e ag ai n de ni ed

kn owi ng hi m

. W ig na ll as ke d St oe ke l if sh e was th e on ly on e ho m e. Sh e sa id y es an d

rep eat ed th at Co ll in s was no t th ere. W ig na ll ex pl ai ne d th at th e arre st warra nt was fo r

a pa ro le vi ol at i o n a n d s a id he “ di dn ’t wan t he r to be in tro ub le .” St oe ke l be cam e

The Ho no rab le Ro na ld E. Lon gs ta ff, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-“ rat he r em ot io na l.” W ig na ll sa id he jus t ne ed e d to kn ow if Co ll in s was th ere.

St oe ke l agai n sai d, “ no .” W ig na ll as ke d, “ No, he’s not he re, or no , y ou do n’t kn ow

if he ’s he re ? ” S t o e ke l res po nd ed

, “ I do n’t kn ow.” W ig na ll sa id

, “ y ou r an swe r [to

th at qu es ti on ] is te ll in g m e

. . . y ou ha ve li ed th is who le ti m e, an d y ou kn ow exac tl y
who I’m ta lk in g ab ou t.” St oe ke l th en ad m it te d kn owi ng Co ll in s. Ask ed if he was in

th e h o u s e a t th at ti m e, St oe ke l sa id

, “ I do n’t kn ow. He m ay ha ve co m e ho m e la st

ni gh t.” W ig na ll as ke d whi ch ro om Co ll in s st ay ed in

. St oe ke l “ po in te d up st ai rs .”

W ig na ll as ke d if sh e wou ld m in d if he m ad e su re Co ll in s was no t in th e res id en ce “ fo r

my sa fet y .” St oe ke l sa id

, “ Fi ne .” W ig na ll an d Sm it h pr oc eed ed up st ai r s , f o u n d

Co ll in s as le ep i n th e be dr oo m , an d arre st ed hi m

. Dur in g th e arre st

, th e of fic ers

no ti ced an op en ba g n ex t t o C ol li ns co nt ai ni ng th e fi rear m in qu es ti on

.

In de nyin g th e m ot io n to su pp res s, th e di st ric t co ur t cred it ed th e te st im on y of

Offi cer W ig na ll an d fo un d th at St oe ke l va li dl y co ns en te d to th e of fic ers en te rin g th e
ho m e an d la te r pr oc eed in g up st ai rs to C o l l in s’s be dr oo m

. The co ur t up he ld th e

se iz ur e of th e fir earm be cau se it was in pl ai n vi ew. On a p p e a l

, C o l li ns ch al le ng es

on ly the va li di ty of th e se arch of S to ek el ’s ho m e.

“ [F]or Fo ur th Am en dm en t pu rp os es , an arre st warra nt fo un d e d on pr ob ab le

cau se im pl ic it ly carr ie s wit h it th e li m it ed au th or it y to en te r a dwe ll in g in whi ch th e

su sp ect li ve s wh en th ere i s reas on to be li ev e th e su sp ect is wit hi n.” Pay to n v . New

Yor k, 44 5 U.S. 57 3, 60 3 (19 80 ). Bu t befo re ent eri ng a th ird pa rty’ s ho m e to se arch

fo r th e su bjec t of an arre st warra nt

, po li ce m us t o b t a i n a se arch warra nt

, ab se nt

ex ig en t ci rcu ms t an ces or th e th ird pa rty’ s co ns en t. St eag al d v. Uni te d St at es , 45 1

U.S. 20 4, 21 4- 16 (1 98 1)

. “ Howev er, St eag al d do es no t pr ev en t po li ce e n try if th e

a r r e s ti ng of

fic ers ex ecu ti ng th e arre st warra nt at th e th ird pe rs on ’s ho m e ha v e a

re as on ab le be li ef th at th e su sp ect res id es at th e pl ace to be en te red an d hav e rea so n

to be li ev e th at th e su sp ect is pr es en t at th e t i me th e warra nt is ex ecu te d.” Uni te d

St at es v. Po well , 3 79 F.3 d 52 0, 52 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( e mp ha si s in or ig in al , c it at io ns

om it te d)

.

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t fir st fo un d th e of fic ers ha d no reas on to be li ev e Co ll in s was

pr es en t whe n th ey arri v e d a t t h e res id en ce bu t St oe ke l, aft er in it ia ll y refu si ng ,

vo lu nt ari ly g av e he r co ns en t t o e nt er t he li vi ng roo m . On ap pe al , Col li ns co nc ed es

th at Ms . Sto ek el le t W ig na ll in “ so le ly to an swe r qu es ti on s, s ay in g, ‘You can go no

fu rth er tha n th e li vi ng ro om .’ ” Howev er, he arg ue s, th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e

en ou gh ab ou t he r ag e, ed uc at io n, ph y s i c a l c o n di ti on , an d ex pe rie nc e wit h la w

en fo rcem en t to e s t a b l i s h th at sh e was cap ab le of kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary co ns en t.

Thi s co nt en ti on is wit ho ut m eri t. The di st ric t co ur t no te d th at St oe ke l was ol d en ou gh

to le as e th e pr em is es , en ga ge d W ig na ll in a “ reas on ed co nv ers at io n,” an d un de rs to od

he r le ga l rig ht s su ffi ci en tl y to in it ia ll y refu se en try. Abs en t ev id en ce to th e co nt rary,

t he se ci rcu m st an ces were su ffi ci en t fo r a reas on ab le po li ce of fic er to co nc lu de t h a t

he r co ns en t to th e li m it ed en try was vo lu nt ary. See Uni te d St at es v. Co rrea , 64 1 F.3 d

96 1, 96 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Co ne y , 45 6 F.3 d 85 0, 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

Em ph as iz in g th e “ lo ud ,” “ em ot io na l,” fiv e-m in ut e co nv ers at io n in w h ic h

Offi cer W ig na ll accu se d St oe ke l of lying an d im pr es se d up on he r th e “ se rio us ne ss of

w h a t w as go in g on ,” Co ll in s fu rth er arg ue s th at St oe ke l’s “ co ns en t” to se arch t h e

up st ai rs -- m an ife st ed on ly by po in ti ng up st ai rs an d sa y in g “ fin e”
-- was “ at be st m ere

acq ui es cen ce to po li ce au th or it y oc casioned by du res s an d co erci on .” In reject in g th is

co nt en ti on , th e d is tri ct co ur t ex pl ai ne d:

[A ] s the co nve rs at ion co nti nue d, St oeke l be cam e in crea si ng ly co nc ern ed
ab ou t th e le ga l ram ifi cat io ns of he r own co nd uc t. Thi s is es pe ci al ly tru e aft er Of f i c e r W ig na ll co nf

ro nt ed he r wit h a po ss ib le li e. Bas ed on th e
to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e Co ur t co nc lu de s th at it was reas on ab le
fo r Offi cer W ig na ll to be li ev e th at St oe ke l vo lu nt ari ly ch an ge d he r m in d

an d co ns en te d to th e se arch

. Tha t sh e m ay ha ve reac he d th is de ci si on rel uc ta n t l y do es no t ch an ge th e vo lu nt ar in es s of he r co nd uc t an d

st at em en t.

-4

-W e ag ree. Here, t he re was no “ m ere acq ui es cen ce” to a fa ls e cl ai m of la wfu l

au th or it y , li ke th e no n- ex is te nt se arch warra nt in Bu m pe r v. Nor th Caro li na , 39 1 U.S.

54 3, 54 9 (1 96 8)

, or th e fal se cl ai m th at of fic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se in Uni te d St at es

v. Esco ba r, 38 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Rat he r, Offi cer W ig na ll ex pl ai ne d to

St oe ke l th at he was at te m pt in g to ex ecu te a va li d warra nt fo r Co ll in s’s arre st

. W he n
sh e d e n i e d kn owi ng Co ll in s, co nt rary to wha t W ig na ll ha d be en to ld by a rel ia bl e

so ur ce an d by St oe ke l’s la nd lo rd

, he accu rat el y warn ed “ th at I di dn ’t wan t he r to be

in tro ub le ” (h arb or in g a fu gi ti ve fro m an arre st warra nt is a cri m e, 18 U.S.C. § 10 71 ).

W hi le St oe ke l was cl earl y in du ced to co op erat e, th ere was no un reas on ab le co erci on

. Thu s, th e fin di ng th at po li ce of fic ers co ul d reas on ab ly co nc lu de th at sh e vo lu nt ari ly

co ns en te d to th ei r go in g up st ai rs was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. See Un i te d St at es v.

Pen a-Po nc e, 58 8 F.3 d 57 9, 58 4- 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ It’s ok ” su ffi ci en t in di cat io n of

co ns en t to se arch ); Uni te d St at es v. Ada m s, 34 6 F.3 d 11 65

, 11 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (fea r

of arre s t “i s o f li tt le co ns eq ue nc e”); Dup ree, 20 2 F.3 d at 10 50 (u nc oe rced co ns en t

ba se d on be li ef th at se arch was in ev it ab le is no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly in vo lu nt ary); Uni te d

St at es v. Dur an , 95 7 F.2 d 49 9, 50 3 (7 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (“ th at a co ns en ti ng pa rty is

ex tre m el y up se t at th e ti m e sh e co ns en ts is no t di sp os it iv e”); Uni te d St at es v. Yate s,

47 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 12

, 12 17 (D. Kan

. 20 07 ), ap pe al di sm is se d, 36 3 Fed

. App ’x 67 0,

67 4 (1 0t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

Mo reo ve r, we co nc lu de th e of fic ers di d no t v i o l a t e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

whe n th ey wen t up st ai rs to lo ok fo r Co ll i n s ev en if th ey di d so wit ho ut St oe ke l’s

co ns en t. The of

fic ers ha d en te red th e ho m e wit h he r li m it ed co ns en t an d ob ey ed he r

co m m an d th at th ey no t go be y on d th e li vi ng ro om du rin g th e fiv e

- minu te

co nv ers at io n. The la nd lo rd ha d jus t to ld th e of fic ers Co ll in s ha d be en th ere rece nt ly.

W he n St oe ke l th en ad m it te d, “ He m ay ha ve co m e ho m e la st ni gh t,” th e of fic ers ha d

wha t th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d la ck in g whe n th ey fir st arri ve d, “ a re as on ab le be li ef th at

th e su sp ect res id es at th e pl ace to be en te red an d

. . . reas on to be li ev e th at th e su sp ect

is pr es en t at th e ti m e th e warra nt is ex ecu te d.” P o w e l l

, 3 79 F.3 d at 52 3 (ci ta ti on s

om it te d)

. Acco rd in gl y , un de r Payton v. New Yor k, th e arre st warra nt ga ve th em th e

-5

-li m it ed au th or it y to pr oc eed to th at po rti on of th e dwe ll in g whe re th ere was reas on to

be li ev e Co ll in s wo ul d b e fo un d.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-6

-