UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO HILL, JR., a/k/a NuNu,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:12-cr-00375-AW-3)

Argued: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 13, 2015

Before TRAXLER, Chief Circuit Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Steven Kiersh, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. James 

I. Pearce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Sujit Raman, Chief of 

Appeals, A. Zoe Bedell, Student Law Clerk, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Hill pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and 

possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of 

marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to conspiracy to 

commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). 

The court sentenced him to 140 months’ imprisonment. Hill now 

appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, 

arguing that it stemmed from an illegal search. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.1

I.

A.

In 2011, while surveilling an apartment building in New 

Carrollton, Maryland, two police officers saw Dominic Hill

(“Dominic”), Appellant’s brother, on a third-floor balcony.

They later observed Dominic conducting what they believed to be 

a narcotics transaction on the sidewalk outside the building. 

The next day, the officers stopped Dominic in the street and 

asked for his name and destination. Dominic gave his name and 

explained that he did not live in the area and was waiting for a 

bus home after visiting a friend. To corroborate his story, 

 1 We decide this appeal on the merits as presented by the 

parties. The government did not preserve the issue of 

cognizability.
3

Dominic handed the officers a set of keys, unasked, and said, 

“[L]ook, I don’t even have a car. [These are] the only keys I 

have.” J.A. 163.

The officers took the keys to the third-floor apartment 

where they had observed Dominic the day before and attempted a 

key turn at the apartment’s front door. One of the keys fit, 

and the officers unlocked then relocked the door, without 

opening it, and withdrew the key. The officers then knocked on 

the door and identified themselves as police. From inside, 

Erico Hill (“Erico”), another defendant later charged in the 

indictment, asked, “Who is it?” J.A. 164. The officers once 

again identified themselves as police, and Erico opened the 

door.

From their vantage point in the hallway, the officers saw 

marijuana inside the apartment. The officers entered the 

apartment, handcuffed Erico, and detained him on the couch. 

While one officer stayed with Erico, the other conducted a 

protective sweep, observing in plain view additional marijuana, 

currency, and a firearm. The officers then secured the 

apartment, applied for and obtained a search warrant, and waited 

for the narcotics enforcement division to arrive.
4

This search led to a federal investigation and, nearly two 

years later, an indictment charging ten defendants, including 

Appellant, with drug-related crimes.2 

B.

Appellant moved to suppress all evidence against him as 

fruit of the poisonous tree based on the warrantless search of

the apartment. The court denied the motion for several reasons.

First, the court ruled that the key turn was not a search, 

agreeing with the government that persuasive authority compelled

that result. Second, the court ruled that the presence of 

marijuana in plain view justified warrantless entry into the 

apartment because “[b]y the time [the police could] get a 

warrant, obviously the marijuana wouldn’t still be there.” J.A. 

204. Finally, the court ruled that the protective sweep was 

permissible because the officers did not find any evidence other 

than what was in plain view and did not seize any evidence prior 

to obtaining a warrant. This appeal followed.

II.

A.

 2 Testimony in the record suggests that Appellant resided in 

the apartment at the time of the search, although he was not 

present when it occurred.
5

In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review 

the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its 

legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d 

308, 311 (4th Cir. 2014).

B.

Appellant contends on appeal that Erico involuntarily 

opened the apartment door in response to the officers’ demands 

under color of authority. Thus, Appellant submits that the 

officers conducted an illegal search by viewing marijuana in the 

apartment through the opened door, and that all evidence 

gathered as a result of this search was fruit of the poisonous 

tree. We disagree.

It is well established that a knock and announcement, 

without more, does not constitute a demand under color of 

authority. See Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1863 (2011) 

(stating that “[t]here [was] no evidence of a ‘demand’ of any 

sort” where the officers “banged on the door as loud as [they] 

could” and identified themselves as police (second alteration in 

original)). That is all that happened here. Erico opened the 

door after the officers knocked and identified themselves as 

police. They made no accompanying demand that the door be 

opened. 

Appellant’s reliance on cases in which the police demanded 

under color of authority that the door be opened are therefore 
6

misplaced. See, e.g., United States v. Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395, 

400 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that the defendant did not 

open a door voluntarily where he “initially refused to open his 

door and . . . opened it slightly after the officers had 

identified themselves and demanded that he open it”), abrogated 

on other grounds by King, 131 S. Ct. 1849. Because Erico opened 

the door in response to the officers’ knock and announcement 

only rather than in response to a demand that he open it, we 

conclude that he did so voluntarily. Therefore, the officers 

conducted a legal search and the evidence gathered as a result 

was not fruit of the poisonous tree warranting suppression.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of 

Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence is

AFFIRMED.