` 

Department of Homeland Security

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers 

Office of Chief Counsel

Legal Training Division 

November 2014 

THE

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

-INFORMER- A MONTHLY LEGAL RESOURCE AND COMMENTARY FOR LAW 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND AGENTS

Join THE INFORMER E-mail Subscription List

It’s easy! Click HERE to subscribe, 

change your e-mail address, or unsubscribe. 

THIS IS A SECURE SERVICE. No one but the FLETC Legal Division will have 

access to your address, and you will receive mailings from no one except the 

FLETC Legal Division.

Welcome to this installment of The Federal Law Enforcement Informer (The Informer). The Legal Training Division of the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers’ Office of Chief Counsel is dedicated to providing law enforcement officers with 

quality, useful and timely United States Supreme Court and federal Circuit Courts of Appeals reviews, interesting developments in 

the law, and legal articles written to clarify or highlight various issues. The views expressed in these articles are the opinions of the 

author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The Informer is researched and 

written by members of the Legal Division. All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding The Informer can be directed to the 

Editor at (912) 267-3429 or FLETC-LegalTrainingDivision@dhs.gov. You can join The Informer Mailing List, have The Informer

delivered directly to you via e-mail, and view copies of the current and past editions and articles in The Quarterly Review and The 

Informer by visiting https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources. 

This edition of The Informer may be cited as 11 INFORMER 14. 
The Informer – November 2014

Supreme Court Preview

Heien v. North Carolina: Fourth Amendment: mistake of law, reasonable suspicion, 

 traffic stop.........................................................................................................4

Elonis v. United States: First Amendment: protected speech, true threats exception..............................4

Rodriguez v. United States: Fourth Amendment: traffic stop, canine sniff, 

 reasonable suspicion.....................................................................................5

City of Los Angeles v. Patel: Fourth Amendment: expectation of privacy, hotel guest registry,

 warrantless inspection search......................................................................5 

Henderson v. United States: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) 

 Motion to Return Property...................................................... ....................6

Case Summaries

United States Supreme Court

Carroll v. Carman: Whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment by approaching

 a sliding glass door instead of the front door when conducting a knock and talk 

 interview....................................................................................................................7

Circuit Courts of Appeals

First Circuit

United States v. Awer: Whether a traffic stop was still ongoing as to the passenger of a car 

 after the police officer arrested the driver............................................................8

Sixth Circuit

Cass v. City of Dayton: Whether a police officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable after 

the officer shot and killed the passenger in a car that had just struck 

him and another police officer............................................................................8

Seventh Circuit

Matz v. Klotka: Whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the plaintiff.......................9

United States v. Schmitt: Whether a police officer seized a rifle during a lawful protective

 sweep of the defendant’s house......................................................................10

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Reid: Whether it was reasonable for a police officer to enter the defendant’s

 house without a warrant to allow an arrestee to change clothes..........................10

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Moore: Whether the search of the defendant’s house was lawful where 

the defendant’s fiancée consented to the search while the defendant, 

who was present, did not expressly object.......................................................11

2
FLETC Informer Webinar Series

1. Use of Force Legal Refresher

2-hour webinar presented by Tim Miller, FLETC Legal Division

This course will cover the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test for seizing free 

citizens. It will cover the United States Supreme Court's analysis in Graham v. Connor, when 

deadly force and intermediate weapons are reasonable, and the defense of qualified immunity. 

Date and Time: Thursday December 11, 2014: 3:00 p.m. EST.

To join this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/uof-refresher

******************************************************************************

2. Law Enforcement Legal Refresher Training 

2-hour webinar presented by Bruce-Alan Barnard, FLETC Legal Division

This two-hour block of instruction focuses on Fourth and Fifth Amendment law and is 

designed to meet the training requirements for state and federal law enforcement officers who 

have mandated two-hour legal refresher training requirements. 

Date and Time: Tuesday December 16, 2014: 2:30 p.m. EST.

To join this webinar: https://share.dhs.gov/lgd0312

To participate in a FLETC Informer Webinar:

1. Click on the appropriate link above to access the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN).

2. If you have a HSIN account, enter with your login and password information.

3. If you do not have a HSIN account click on the button next to “Enter as a Guest.”

4. Enter your name and click the “Enter” button.

5. You will now be in the meeting room and will be able to participate in the webinar.

6. Even though meeting rooms may be accessed before a webinar, there may be times when 

a meeting room is closed while an instructor is setting up the room.

7. Meeting rooms will be open and fully accessible at least one-hour before a scheduled webinar.

8. Training certificates will be provided at the conclusion of each webinar.

3
Supreme Court 

Law Enforcement Cases

October 2014 Term

Fourth Amendment: Mistake of Law / Reasonable Suspicion / Traffic Stop

Heien v. North Carolina

Decision Below: 737 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. 2012)

A police officer stopped the car in which Heien was a passenger because it only had one operating 

brake light. During the stop, the officer received consent to search the car and discovered cocaine 

inside a duffel bag. Heien and the driver were charged with trafficking cocaine. 

Heien argued North Carolina law did not require a vehicle to have all brake lights in working order or 

to be equipped with more than one brake light. As a result, Heien claimed the traffic stop constituted 

an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment; therefore, the cocaine should have been 

suppressed. 

The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed, holding North Carolina law requires motor vehicles to 

have only one brake light. As result, the court held the officer’s mistaken belief about the 

requirements of the state’s brake light law was objectively unreasonable, and the stop violated Heien’s 

Fourth Amendment rights. 

The state appealed and the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The North 

Carolina Supreme Court held the officer’s mistake of the law was objectively reasonable, as no court 

in North Carolina had ever interpreted the motor vehicle laws to require only one functioning brake 

light. Consequently, the court held the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. 

Heien appealed to the United States Supreme Court. 

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide 

reasonable suspicion to support a traffic stop.

The Court heard oral arguments in this case on October 6, 2014.

*****

First Amendment: Protected Speech / True Threats Exception

Elonis v. United States

Decision Below: 730 F.3d 321, (3d Cir. 2013)

Elonis was convicted of making threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). On 

appeal, Elonis argued the government was required to prove his subjective intent to threaten under the 

true threat exception to the First Amendment. Because he did not subjectively intend his Facebook 

posts to be threatening, Elonis argued his posts were not threats, but protected speech. The Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and Elonis appealed.

4
The first issue before the Supreme Court is whether a conviction for threatening another person 

requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten, or whether it is sufficient to show that a 

reasonable person would regard the statements as threatening. 

The second issue before the Supreme Court is whether a conviction for threatening another person 

under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten. 

The Court will hear oral arguments in this case on December 1, 2014.

*****

Fourth Amendment: Traffic Stop / Canine Sniff / Reasonable Suspicion

Rodriguez v. United States

Decision Below: 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014)

A police officer conducted a traffic stop after he saw Rodriguez’s car veer onto the shoulder of the 

road then swerve back into the lane of travel. The officer conducted a records check on Rodriguez and 

the front seat passenger. After the officer issued Rodriguez a written warning, he asked Rodriguez for 

permission to walk his drug-sniffing dog around the car. When Rodriguez refused, the officer directed 

Rodriguez to get out of the car until a back-up officer could arrive. After the back-up officer arrived, 

the officer walked his dog around Rodriguez’s car and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. The 

officer searched Rodriguez’s car, found a large bag of methamphetamine and arrested Rodriguez. 

Approximately seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time the officer issued the written warning 

until the dog alerted on Rodriguez’s car. 

Rodriguez argued that after the officer issued the written warning, the officer did not have reasonable 

suspicion to detain him on the side of the road while waiting for the back-up officer to arrive. 

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Without deciding whether the officer had reasonable 

suspicion to continue to detain Rodriguez after he issued the written warning, the Eighth Circuit held 

the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged by the dog sniff. First, even though the dog was 

located in the officer’s patrol car, the officer waited to use it until the back-up officer arrived for safety 

reasons as there were two individuals in Rodriguez’s car. Second, Rodriguez was only detained for an 

additional seven or eight minutes after the officer issued the written warning. The court concluded 

such a delay was reasonable and only constituted a de minimis intrusion on Rodriguez’s personal 

liberty. 

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether an officer may extend an already completed traffic stop 

for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification.

The Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in this case.

*****

Fourth Amendment: Expectation of Privacy / Hotel Guest Registry / Warrantless Inspection

City of Los Angeles v. Patel

Decision Below: 738 F. 3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2013)

Los Angeles Municipal Code §41.49 authorizes police officers with the Los Angeles Police 

Department to inspect hotel guest records at any time without consent or a search warrant. Failure to 

comply with an officer’s inspection demand is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail 

5
and a $1000 fine. Patel, a motel owner in Los Angeles, sued the city, asking the court to prevent the 

continued enforcement of §41.49’s warrantless inspection provision. Patel argued that as written, or 

on its face, §41.49 violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and 

seizures. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Although Patel did not allege that an unconstitutional 

search occurred at his motel under §41.49, the court nevertheless held that § 41.49 was invalid on its 

face. Specifically, the court concluded §41.49 violated the Fourth Amendment because it authorized 

the inspection of hotel records without allowing the hotel owner an opportunity to obtain judicial 

review of the reasonableness of the demand, before suffering penalties for refusing to comply. 

The first issue before the Supreme Court is whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the 

Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-provided information is required by law 

and that law authorizes the police to inspect the registry. If the answer is “Yes,” then the court will

determine whether §41.49 is unconstitutional on its face, because it does not expressly provide for precompliance judicial review before police officers can inspect the registry. 

The Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in this case.

*****

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41 (g): Motion to Return Property

Henderson v. United States

Decision Below: 555 Fed. Appx. 851 (11th Cir. 2014)

Henderson, a former United States Border Patrol Agent, was charged with distribution of marijuana, a 

federal felony. As a condition of his bond, Henderson voluntarily surrendered nineteen firearms to the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Henderson pled guilty to the drug charge and became a 

convicted felon in 2007. In 2008, the FBI refused to return the firearms after Henderson proposed to 

transfer them to a potential buyer. Henderson then filed a motion under Rule 41(g) of the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure requesting that he be allowed to transfer ownership of the firearms to the 

potential buyer, or to his wife. 

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, denied Henderson’s Rule 41

motion. The court held it would be in violation of 18. U.S.C. § 922(g) if the court delivered actual or 

constructive possession of firearms to a convicted felon. The court noted Henderson acknowledged in 

his plea agreement that as a felon he would not be allowed to possess firearms. In addition, the court 

stated a defendant who has been convicted of a felony drug offense has “unclean hands” to demand the 

equitable return of his firearms. 

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a felony conviction, which makes it unlawful for the 

defendant to possess a firearm, prevents a court under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure or under general equity principles from ordering that the government: (1) Transfer noncontraband firearms to an unrelated third party to whom the defendant has sold all his property 

interests; or (2) Sell the firearms for the benefit of the defendant.

The Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in this case.

*****

6
CASE SUMMARIES

United States Supreme Court

Carroll v. Carman, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 7430 (U.S. Nov. 10, 2014)

The Pennsylvania State Police received a report that Zita, a suspect in a car theft, might be located at

Andrew and Karen Carman’s house. Two police officers were dispatched to the Carmans’ house to 

conduct a knock and talk interview. The Carmans’ house was situated on a corner lot with the front of 

the house facing a main street and the left side of the house facing a side street. The officers initially 

drove to the front of the house, but after discovering no available parking, drove down the side street 

next to the Carmans’ house and parked at the far rear of the property. When the officers exited their 

cars, they walked toward the Carmans’ house from the side and approached a sliding glass door that 

opened onto a ground-level deck. As the officers stepped onto the deck, Andrew Carman came out of 

the house and confronted the officers in a belligerent and aggressive manner. Carman refused to 

answer any of the officers’ questions, and as Carman turned away from the officers, he appeared to 

reach for his waist. Officer Carroll grabbed Carman’s arm to make sure Carman was not reaching for 

a weapon causing Carman to lose his balance and fall into the yard. At this point, Karen Carman came 

out of the house, spoke with the officers, and then consented to a search of the house. The officers 

searched the Carmans’ house but did not find Zita. The Carmans were not charged with any crimes. 

The Carmans sued Officer Carroll, claiming that Carroll violated the Fourth Amendment when he went 

into their backyard and onto their deck without a warrant. 

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held Officer Carroll was not entitled to qualified immunity. The 

court found Officer Carroll violated the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law because the knock and 

talk exception requires police officers to begin their encounter at the front door, where they have an 

implied invitation to go. The court further held it was clearly established at the time of the incident 

that a police officer’s right to knock at the front door while conducting a knock and talk did not 

automatically allow the officer to enter other parts of the curtilage. Officer Carroll appealed to the 

United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case without briefing or oral arguments from 

the parties.

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, holding at the time of the incident

there was no clearly established law in the Third Circuit requiring police officers to initiate a knock 

and talk interview at the front door of a residence. Significantly, the Court did not elaborate on the 

rules police officers must follow when conducting knock and talk interviews where both the front and 

back doors of a residence appear to be readily accessible to visitors. The Court referenced cases from 

the Second and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal that left this choice to the officers. However, the 

Court added it was not ruling on whether those cases were correctly decided or whether a police 

officer may conduct a knock and talk at any entrance that is open to visitors rather than only at the 

front door. 

See 6 Informer 14 for the case brief for Carman v. Carroll, 749 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. Pa., 2014)

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

7
Circuit Courts of Appeal

First Circuit

United States v. Awer, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20700 (1st Cir. R.I. Oct. 29, 2014)

A police officer stopped a car for speeding and arrested the driver, Johnson, for failing to have a valid 

driver’s license. While securing Johnson, the officer saw Awer moving around suspiciously inside the 

car. When the officer ordered Awer to exit the car, Awer reached for the center console instead. As

the officer grabbed Awer and pulled him from the car, Awer told the officer he had marijuana in his 

pocket. The officer arrested Awer and while conducting an inventory search, found cocaine in the 

trunk of the car. The government indicted Awer for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

Awer argued the cocaine should have been suppressed. First, Awer claimed the initial traffic stop was 

complete once the officer arrested Johnson; therefore, the officer needed reasonable suspicion of 

criminal activity to continue investigating him. Second, Awer claimed he was placed under de facto 

arrest without probable cause when the officer forcibly removed him from the car. 

The court disagreed. The court found approximately three minutes elapsed between the time Johnson 

pulled over and the officer ordered Awer out of the car. This strongly suggested to the court the initial 

traffic stop was still ongoing, as the officer still had to determine what to do with the car after arresting 

Johnson. The court further held Awer’s forcible removal from the car did not constitute a de facto 

arrest. During a traffic stop, a police officer may order the driver and any passengers out of the car 

until the traffic stop is complete. In addition, when a passenger refuses an officer’s request to exit a 

vehicle, the officer may forcibly remove the person from the car. Here, when Awer refused to exit the 

car, the officer used a reasonable amount of force to pull Awer out of the car. The court concluded the 

officer’s use of force did not transform the encounter with Awer into a de facto arrest. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Sixth Circuit

Cass v. City of Dayton, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19812 (6th Cir. Ohio October 16, 2014)

Several police officers were involved in a buy-bust operation where a confidential informant (CI) had 

arranged to buy crack cocaine from Moore. Moore arrived at the meeting location in a blue Ford 

Taurus that contained three or four occupants. After the CI made a pre-arranged signal, several 

officers moved in to apprehend Moore. Officers House and St. Clair walked in front of the Taurus 

with their firearms drawn and yelled, “Dayton Police. Stop the car.” Instead of stopping, the driver of 

the Taurus, Stargell, accelerated toward the officers. The Taurus struck Officer House, who rolled 

across the hood. After striking House, the Taurus struck Officer St. Clair’s hand, causing him to 

accidentally discharge his firearm. Believing that St. Clair had fired in self-defense, House fired a 

single shot at the driver of the Taurus. House’s bullet struck and killed Jordan, the front seat 

passenger. Stargell eventually crashed the Taurus into a tree. The City of Dayton Police Department 

later determined House and St. Clair violated the department’s firearms policy by deliberately placing 

themselves in the path of the moving vehicle as Stargell drove away.

8
Cass, the administrator of Jordan’s estate, sued Officer House and the City of Dayton, claiming House 

used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment against Jordan.

The court held Officer House was entitled to qualified immunity. In the Sixth Circuit, when analyzing 

deadly force claims concerning fleeing vehicles, the court must determine whether the officer has 

“reason to believe that the fleeing car presents an imminent danger” to “officers and members of the 

public in the area.” An officer is justified in using deadly force against “a driver who objectively 

appears ready to drive into an officer or bystander with his car.” Here, the court concluded Officer 

House’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. As House approached the Taurus, clearly 

identifying himself as a police officer, Stargell accelerated toward him. Almost immediately after 

being struck, House heard St. Clair discharge his firearm, in what House believed was self-defense. 

Knowing that two other officers were potentially in the path of the Taurus, House discharged his 

firearm in an attempt to stop the Taurus by shooting at the driver. Consequently, when House 

discharged his firearm, it was reasonable for him to believe the lives and safety of other police officers 

and members of the public in the area were in imminent danger. In addition, the court added House’s 

alleged violation of City policy did not change its conclusion that House acted objectively reasonable 

under the circumstances. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Seventh Circuit

Matz v. Klotka, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19074 (7th Cir. Wis. Oct. 6, 2014)

While on patrol, two police officers saw Salazar and several other men standing on the porch of an 

apartment. The officers knew Salazar belonged to a local gang and that Salazar had an outstanding 

arrest warrant for armed robbery. By the time the officers turned around, the men on the porch had 

fled. The officers ran down an alley next to the apartment and saw two men in a car starting to drive 

away. The officers drew their handguns and ordered the occupants out of the car. When Matz exited 

the car, the officers handcuffed him and placed him in a patrol car. Shortly afterward, the officers 

discovered the car was stolen and arrested Matz. Salazar was arrested later inside the apartment.

Matz sued the police officers, claiming the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because they did 

not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. Alternatively, Matz argued his detention by the 

officers was not a Terry stop, but rather a de facto arrest that was not supported by probable cause. 

The court disagreed. First, the officers saw Salazar, a known gang member, who had an outstanding 

arrest warrant for armed robbery. Second, when the officers approached Salazar and the other men on 

the porch, all of the men ran away. Third, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe 

Salazar could have been in the car driven by Matz. Consequently, it was reasonable for the officers to 

stop the car and briefly detain the occupants to determine if Salazar was inside. 

The court further held that given the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to draw their 

firearms and handcuff Matz while they controlled the situation and determined who was in the car. 

While the use of firearms and handcuffs put Matz’s seizure at the outer edge of a lawful Terry stop, 

the court concluded that Matz’s detention was not a de facto arrest without probable cause. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

9
United States v. Schmitt, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20066 (7th Cir. Ind. Oct. 20, 2014)

A confidential informant told a police officer that Schmitt, a convicted felon, had recently acquired an 

assault rifle in exchange for $200 and two grams of methamphetamine. Police officers followed up 

on the tip by conducting surveillance on Schmitt’s house. During their surveillance, the officers saw 

Schmitt come to the front door several time to allow people to enter and exit his home. The next day, 

police officers returned to Schmitt’s house with an arrest warrant for Schmitt. Within five minutes of 

entry, the officers located Schmitt and another individual. During that time, a police officer opened a 

locked door that led to the basement where he saw an assault rifle. The government indicted Schmitt 

for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. 

Schmitt filed a motion to suppress the rifle, arguing after he was arrested upstairs, the officer violated 

the Fourth Amendment by opening the locked basement door and searching the basement. 

The court disagreed, holding the officer discovered the assault rifle in plain view during a lawful 

protective sweep of the basement. A protective sweep is a quick and limited search of premises, 

incident to arrest, to protect the safety of the officers and others. This exception to the Fourth 

Amendment’s warrant requirement allows police officers to conduct a visual inspection of those places 

in which a person might hide. Police officers may look in closets and other spaces immediately 

adjacent to the arrest area. However, to search beyond the immediate area, the officers must have 

facts which would lead a reasonable officer to believe the area to be swept harbors an individual who 

poses a danger to those at the scene. 

In this case, without deciding whether the basement was immediately adjacent to the place of 

Schmitt’s arrest, the court held the officers had reason to believe the basement could have harbored 

someone who posed a threat to the officers. First, the officers saw several people going in and out of 

Schmitt’s house the day before. Second, the officers knew Schmitt had a violent criminal history. 

Third, the officers had information that Schmitt had a firearm in the house. Finally, although the 

basement door was locked, the court noted the officers would not have been protected if a person with 

a gun decided to kick the door down or shoot through it. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion

*****

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Reid, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20135 (8th Cir. Mo. Oct. 20, 2014)

Police officers went to Graham’s house to arrest her on an outstanding warrant. When the officers 

arrived, the front door was ajar, and the officers saw Graham dressed in pajamas inside the house. The 

officers ordered Graham to approach the doorway and after she did, an officer handcuffed Graham, 

and pulled her outside. An officer then agreed to allow Graham to reenter the house to get dressed. 

While escorting Graham to her bedroom, an officer saw an assault rifle in plain view. When the 

officer asked Graham about the rifle, Graham told the officer it belonged to her live-in boyfriend, 

Reid. Graham subsequently consented to a search of the house and officers discovered a shotgun, 

ammunition and a disassembled pistol. The government indicted Reid for being a convicted felon in 

possession of a firearm.

Reid filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the house. First, Reid argued the assault rifle 

should have been suppressed because the officer violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the house 

10
with Graham, without a warrant. Second, Reid argued the other firearms and ammunition should have 

been suppressed because they were discovered as a direct result of finding the assault rifle. 

The court disagreed. The arrest of a person outside a home does not by itself justify a warrantless 

search of the residence. However, when an officer allows an arrestee to reenter her home for her own 

convenience, it is reasonable for the officer to accompany her and to monitor her movements. In this 

case, when the officers arrested Graham, she was clad only in pajamas. The court concluded it was 

reasonable for the officer to accompany Graham to her bedroom so she could change into clothes. 

Consequently, when the officer saw the assault rifle in plain view, he was allowed to lawfully seize it 

under the Fourth Amendment. The court further held the other firearms and ammunition were 

lawfully seized after Graham provided valid consent to search the house. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Moore, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20413 (9th Cir. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2014)

Federal agents suspected Moore was involved in a marijuana distribution ring. While conducting 

surveillance on the house Moore shared with his fiancée, Jones, the agents saw Jones leave. A few 

hours later, knowing Moore was home, agents knocked on the door of the house and rang the doorbell

in an attempt to conduct a knock and talk interview. The agents heard people inside the house; 

however, no one answered the door. One of the agents then called Jones, identified himself, and 

explained why her house was under surveillance. Jones returned home and gave the agents consent to 

search the house. When Jones tried to unlock the front door, she discovered the door had been locked 

with a dead-bolt that could not be unlocked from the outside. After Jones knocked on the door and 

yelled for someone inside the house to come to the door without success, Jones gave the officers 

permission to break through the front door with a battering ram. Once inside the house, the agents 

found marijuana, scales and packing material. The government indicted Moore for possession of 

marijuana with intent to distribute. 

Moore moved to suppress the evidence seized from his house. Even though Jones consented to the 

search of the house, Moore argued because he was present and did not consent to the search, the 

agents’ warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment. 

The court disagreed. In Georgia v. Randolph, the United States Supreme Court held the consent of 

one occupant of a residence is not valid when another occupant is present and expressly refuses 

consent to search. In this case, the court held the search by the agents did not violate Randolph

because Moore never expressly refused consent to search. Although Moore was present, the court 

found he remained inside the house while Jones worked with the agents to gain entry into the house. 

The court noted acquiescence to a co-occupant’s consent to search and the police officers’ subsequent 

actions is not sufficient to satisfy the “express refusal” requirement in Randolph. In addition, the court 

added there was nothing stated in Randolph that prohibits police officers from using a battering ram to 

gain access to a residence when the co-occupant is locked out and expressly consents to its use to gain 

entry. 

Click HERE for the court’s opinion.

*****

11