# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 40 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Ant ho ny Shan e Sco tt

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 17 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 13 , 20 17 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Ant ho ny Sh an e Sco tt ’s m ot io n to su pp res s gu ns 1

se iz ed fro m hi s ho m e, Sco tt co nd it io n a l ly pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a fel on in

The Hon or ab le Su sa n W eb be r Wr i g ht
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.po ss es si on of fir earm s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ), res erv in g th e rig ht to

ap pe al th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to su pp res s. Sco tt no w ap pe al s th e or de r de nyin g hi s

m ot io n, an d, fo r th e rea so ns th at fol lo w, we affi rm

.

I. Back gr ou nd Earl y on e aft ern oo n, lo cal la w en fo rcem en t res po n d e d t o m ul ti pl e se cu rit y al arm s at a ru ral res id en ce in Fu lt on Co un ty, Ark an sa s. The of fic ers dr ov e do wn th e lo ng dr iv eway an d st op pe d at a cat tl e ga te

. A tru ck si m ul ta ne ou sl y pu ll ed up on th e
ot he r si de of th e ga te , a nd Sco tt go t ou t. A c c o r d in g to th e of fic ers , S co tt ha d bl oo d

on hi s cl ot he s an d was vi si bl y sh ak en up . He to ld th e of fic ers th at hi s wi fe, wh o h e cl ai m ed was o n d ru gs , had run ov er h im wit h t he tru ck , sh ot at hi m , an d th ro wn th e
gu n in th e y ard

. Sco tt ex pr es se d co nc ern fo r th e sa fet y of hi s y ou ng ch il dr e n , who

were st il l wit h hi s wife at th e ho us e. At th is po in t, th e of fic ers co ns id ered Sco tt to be th e po te nt ia l vi ct im of a do m es ti c di sp ut e. The y as ke d Sco tt to st ay at th e ga te area

an d d ro ve th ei r car s t o t he ho us e.

At th e ho us e, th e of

fic ers di sp ers ed to ob se rv e bo th fro nt an d rear ex it s. Tho se of fic ers who ap pr oa ch ed th e fro nt of th e ho us e sa w a wom an si tt in g in a ch ai r at , or jus t wit hi n, th e th res ho ld of th e op en si de of a two -b ay ga rag e. Sh e was sm ok in g an d

us in g he r cel l ph on e. Sh e di d no t a p p e a r arm ed or th reat en in g. Sh e di d no t sa y

an y th in g to th e of

fic ers , no r di d sh e ge st ur e fo r th em t o c o me i n o r ke ep ou t. The of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th is wom an an d b eg an sp eak in g wit h he r. As th ey ap pr oa ch ed
, two li tt le bo y s en te red th e g arag e fro m th e h ou se

.

The wom an id en ti fie d he rs el f as Sco tt ’s wife
, St acy. Sh e to ld th em th at earl ie r sh e at te m pt ed to dr iv e away in th e tru ck wit h he r sm al l ch il d bu t th at Sco tt tri ed to
st op he r. He fir ed fo ur sh ot s at th e tru ck an d ha d gr ab be d an d cl un g to th e tru ck ’s si de

m irr or , rip pi ng it of

f. He th en ju mp e d in to th e be d of th e tru ck an d br ok e th e rear win do w. In fear
, St acy an d he r ch il dr en le ft th e tru ck an d ran in si de th e ho us e. St acy
to ld th e of

fic ers th at Sco tt ev en tu al ly th rew th e gu n in to th e y ard

. Sh e as ke d he r sm al l

-2

-so n whe re “ Dad dy” ha d th ro wn th e gu n, an d th e bo y po in te d to t h e ya r d n e a r th e

ho us e. So m e of th e of

fic ers se arch ed th e y ard fo r a gu n, bu t th ey di d no t fin d it

. The of fic ers rep or te d St acy’ s de m ean or du rin g th is co nv ers at io n va rio us ly as an gr y , cal m ,
an d fri gh te ne d, bu t al l de sc rib ed he r as c o o p e r a t i v e

. Sh e di d no t ap pe ar to be on dr ug s. W it h th e fam il y no w se cu re, on e of th e of fic ers wen t ba ck to th e cat tl e ga te an d pl aced Sco tt in th e b ack se at of t he po li ce ca r.

The se ni or of

fic er pr es en t ca lle d Sco tt ’s pa ro le of fic er, who gr an te d pe rm is si on fo r th e of fic ers to en te r Sco tt ’s h om e to c o n d u ct a pa ro le se arch . Th e se ni or of fic er

an d pa ro le of

fic er reca ll ed th e co nv ers at io n di ff e r e n t l y, bu t th e pa ro le of fic er ack no wled ge d th at it was a flu id si tu at io n an d th at a gu n was in vo lv e d

. The pa ro le of fic er wen t to Sco tt ’s ho us e an d, up on hi s arri va l, di d no t ob ject to th e se arch
, whi ch

was th en un de rway

.

St acy to ld th e of

fic ers th at th e ho us e co nt ai ne d ot he r fir earm s, be si de s th e gu n th at Sco tt ha d di sc ard ed , wh ic h b el on ge d t o h er h us ba nd an d s on . S he sa id th at sh e

wou ld ta ke th e of

fic ers in si de an d sh ow th em th e gu ns as well as th e ho m e’s se cu rit y

cam era. Th e o ffi cers acce pt ed he r of fer an d fo ll owe d he r in si de . Unfo rtu na te ly, th e

m em or y card was m is si ng fro m th e se cu rit y eq ui pm en t res ul ti ng in no reco rd in g of

t h e in ci de nt

. St acy th en sh owe d th e of fic ers aro un d th e ho us e, le ad in g th em to a hi dd en gu n an d a gu n sa fe. To op en th e sa fe, St acy cal le d he r ol de r so n at sc ho ol who

to ld he r th e sa fe’s co de

. The of fic ers fo un d se ve ral fir earm s i ns id e th e sa fe. The of fic ers un ifo rm ly te st ifi ed th at St acy free ly co op erat ed an d ap pe ared rel ie ve d by

t h ei r pr es en ce. W he n an in ve st ig at or arri ve d, th e of fic ers in fo rm ed hi m of St a c y’s

co op erat io n. The in ve st ig at or di sc us se d a co ns en t-t o- s e arch fo rm wit h St acy, who th en si gn ed it

.

Sco tt ’s c o u n s e l m ov ed to su pp res s th e it em s se iz ed fro m th e res id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to su pp res s an y of th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed in th e ho us e. Fi rs t, it fo un d ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d th e of fic ers ’ e nt ry on to th e pr op ert y an d in to

-3

-th e ga rag e. The co ur t, ho wev er, co nc lu de d th at th e ex ige nt ci rcu m st an ces ceas ed on ce

th e of fic ers sp ok e wit h St acy in th e ga rag e an d sa w th at th e sm al l ch il dr en were sa fe. The di st ric t co ur t th en he ld th at al th ou gh ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces were no lo ng er
pr es en t, St acy ei th er ex pr es sl y or im pl ie dl y co ns en te d to th e of fic ers ’ en try. Thi rd
, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at ev en if St acy’ s or al in vi ta ti on to en te r th e ho us e was no t

co ns en t, St acy ga ve vo lu nt ary writ te n co ns en t aft er th e fact

. Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t he ld th at th e res id en ce se arch was al so a va li d se arch pu rs ua nt to th e pa ro le of fic er’s

ap pr ov al for a pa ro le sea rch an d h is su bs eq ue nt rat ifi cat io n o f th e se arch

.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, Sco tt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by n o t su pp res si ng th e

ev id en ce se iz ed fro m th e ho us e an d al l re la te d t es ti m on y

. He arg ue s pr im ari ly t ha t 2
th e of fic ers ’ warra nt le ss en try in to th e ga rag e vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Sco tt al so arg ue s th at St acy’ s la te r writ te n co ns en t d i d n o t p u r ge th e ta in t of th e pr io r

un la wfu l en try. Fin al ly, he says th at th e se arch was n ot a va li d p aro le sea rch

.

In an ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of a m ot io n t o s u p pr es s, “ we rev ie w th e di st ric t

co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo an d fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Fra sh er , 63 2 F .3d 45 0, 4 53 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pro te ct s aga in st un reas on ab le se arch es an d sei zu res

. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. IV. “ [S]earch es an d se iz ur es in si de a ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt are
pr es um pt ive ly unr ea so na bl e.” Bri gh am Ci ty
, Uta h v. St ua rt , 54 7 U.S. 39 8, 40 3 (2 00 6) (q uo ti ng Gro h v. Ra mir ez , 54 0 U.S. 55 1, 55 9 (2 00 4) ). Bu t “ be cau se th e ul ti m at e
to uc hs to ne of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t is ‘reaso na bl en es s,’ th e warra nt req ui rem en t is

Sco tt in it ia ll y arg u e d t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t al so fai le d to su pp res s cert ai n 2

ev id e n c e s e i z ed fro m hi s tru ck ba se d on an al le ge dl y in va li d se arch warra nt

. Se e Fra nk s v. Dela wa re , 43 8 U.S. 15 4 (1 97 8)

. The go ve rn m en t ha s ag reed no t to us e th e

ev id en ce se iz ed fro m th e tru ck , a nd Sco tt co nc ed ed at or a l a r g u m en t th at th is is su e is m oo t. W e th eref

or e ne ed no t ad dr es s Sco tt ’s in it ia l arg um en ts ab ou t a Fra nk s is su e.

-4

-su bjec t to cert ai n ex cep ti on s.” Id

. “ An act io n i s ‘rea so na bl e’ un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t, reg ard le ss of th e in di vi du al o ffi cer’s st at e of m in d, ‘as lo ng as th e ci rcu m st an ces , vi ewed ob je ct iv el y , jus ti fy [th e] act io n. ’” I d

. at 40 4 (al te rat io n in

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Sc ot t v. Un it ed St at es , 43 6 U.S. 1 28 , 13 8 (1 97 8) ).

The pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t warra nt le ss en tri es do es no t ap pl y if vo lu nt ary co ns en t ha s be en ob ta in ed

. Ill in oi s v. Rod ri gu ez , 49 7 U

. S

. 1 77
, 18 1 (1 99 0)

. Lik ewis e, a

warra nt is no t re q u i r e d i f “ ‘the ex ig en ci es of th e si tu at io n’ m ak e th e ne ed s of la w

en fo rcem en t so co m

pe ll in g th at th e warra nt le ss se ar ch is obj ect iv el y reas on ab le un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” St ua rt , 5 47 U.S. a t 40 3 (c i t a ti on om it te d) . “ One ex ig en cy ob vi at in g th e req ui rem en t of a warra nt is th e ne ed to as si st pe rs on s who are se rio us ly
in jure d or th reat en ed wit h s uc h i nju ry .” Id

. Thu s, “ le gi ti m at e co nc ern for th e sa fet y of in di vi du al s m ay co ns ti tu te ‘ ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ’ jus ti fy in g war ran tl es s en tri es

an d se arch es .” Uni te d St at es v. Ja ni s , 38 7 F.3 d 6 8 2
, 68 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on s

om it te d) (h ol di ng ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d a warra nt le ss en try whe re of fic ers kn ew a gu n ha d di sc ha rg ed an d in jure d so m eo ne , were to ld th e gu n was in th e ho us e,

an d o bs erv ed bl oo d i n t he dri ve way ).

W e ag ree w i th th e di st ric t co ur t th at ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d th e of fic ers ’ warra nt le ss en try in to th e ga rag e. W he n th e of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th e ga rag e, 3
th ey ha d jus t be en to ld ab ou t a vi ol en t do m es ti c di sp ut e i n v o l vi ng a m ot or ve hi cl e

an d a fir earm by an in di vi du al co ve red in bl oo d, who ad vi se d th em th at ch il dr en were
pr es en t at th e res id en ce. Se e id

. at 68 7– 88

. The y pr oc eed ed up to an d in to th e ga rag e le gi ti m at el y co nc ern ed th at so m eo ne at th e ho us e m ay be arm ed an d th at ch il dr en m ay be hu rt or in da ng er. The se are ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces an d jus ti fie d en te rin g th e ga rag e
to ad dr es s th e on ly vi si bl e pe rs on

. Se e id

. at 68 8 (“ [T]he ho m e en try co ul d be jus ti fie d fo r th e o ffi cers to de te rm in e whe th er an y on e el se was i nju red or i n d an ge r . . . .”).

Sco tt an d th e go ve rn m en t ag ree th at ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d th e en try 3
pa st th e cat tl e g at e to th e h ou se

.
-5

-Sco tt ad m it s ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces were pr es en t whe n th e p ol ic e arr iv ed bu t

arg ue s th at th ey ab at ed be fo re th e of fic ers cro ss ed th e th res ho ld of t h e g a r a ge

. W e di sa gr ee. In it s writ te n op in io n, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ [o ]nce th e of fic ers
sp ok e wit h S ta cy in th e ga rag e an d sa w t he sm al l ch il dr en ab ou t who m [Sco tt ] was

wor rie d, an d de te rm in ed th at th ey were al l sa fe, th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st a n c es di sa pp eare d.” Uni te d St at es v. Sc ot t , 4: 14 -cr- 00 14 2- SWW
, sl i p o p

. at 4 (E.D. Ark

. Apr

. 12
, 20 16 ), EC F No. 51

. The fact ua l fin di ng th at of fic ers en te red th e ga rag e be fo re th ey de te rm in ed ev eryone was sa fe is no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. To be su re, so m e of fic ers te st ifi ed th at th ey co nc lu de d th ere was no lo ng er an em erg en cy as th ey walk ed up to th e ga rag e whi le ot he rs sa id th at th ey m ad e th at de te rm in at io n on ly aft er

en te rin g th e ga ra g e t o sp eak wit h St acy. The of fic ers ’ va rie d an d po te nt ia ll y

c o n f l i c t in g te st im on y refl ect s di ffer en t pe rs pe ct iv es of a hi gh ly flu id an d ev ol vi n g si tu at io n as th e of

fic ers arri ve d on sc en e . Vi ewed ob jecti ve ly, h owe ve r, reas on ab le of fic ers were in de ed jus ti fie d in cro ss in g th e g a r a g e th res ho ld to fu ll y as se ss th e si tu at io n an d de te rm in e th e sa fet y of ev eryone pre se nt , i nc lu di ng th e ch il dr en , wh o

so m e of fic ers di d no t ob se rv e un ti l aft er en te rin g th e ga rag e. Se e St ua rt , 54 7 U.S. at 40 3.

Sco tt do es no t ch al le ng e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s fa ct ua l fi nd in g t ha t Stac y in vi te d th e of fic ers in to th e ho m e aft er th ey en te red th e ga rag e. On th is reco rd
, we ag ree wit h

t he di st ric t co ur t th at ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d th e warra nt le ss en try in to th e
ga rag e an d th at St acy co ns en te d to th e of fic ers ’ en try int o t he ho m e. The refo re, th e of fic ers ’ su bs eq ue nt di sc ov ery of th e gu ns wit hi n th e ho m e di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t. 4

W e ne ed no t ad dr es s Sco tt ’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts ab ou t whe th er St acy’ s la te r 4 writ te n co ns en t pu rg ed th e ta in t of an y pr io r un la wfu l en try or whe th er th e res id en ce

se arch was la wfu l as a pa ro le se arch

. Uni te d St at es v. Lu mpk in s , 68 7 F.3 d 10 11
, 10 14 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ Bec au se we fin d th e warra nt le ss se arch va li d on th e ba s is of

co ns en t, we ne ed no t ad dr es s th e al te rn a t i v e th eo rie s ad va nc ed by th e Gov ern m en t to jus ti fy th e se arch .”).

-6

-III. Co nc lu si on

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-7

-