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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 39 41

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

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.

Lou is A. Hardi so n, al so kn own as M oh am m ed L. Carro l

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 9 , 20 17

Fil ed : J un e 1 4, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge , and SCHREIER, 1 2

Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1

St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10

, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.

The Hon or ab le Karen E. Sch rei er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2

of So ut h Dak ot a, si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.Lou is Hard is on ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on fo r be in g a fe l o n in po ss es si on of a

fir ea r m in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ), arg ui ng th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in co m

bi ni ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s m ot io n to su pp res s with hi s 3

be nc h tri al an d in no t ex cl ud in g al l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n ed as a res ul t of a se arch of hi s

ho m e. W e affi rm , fin di ng (1 ) no erro r in th e pr oc ed ur e th e di st ric t co ur t us ed in th is

cas e, an d (2 ) Hard is on vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d to th e se arch

. S e e 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
(ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ).

I. BACKGRO UND

In th e earl y m or ni ng ho ur s of Nov em be r 27

, 20 13

, Dus ha wnn e Hoyt rep or te d

a do m es ti c di st ur ba nc e in vo lv in g a fir earm

. Offi cers fro m t he Neo sh o Po li ce Dep art m en t (Mi ss ou ri) res po nd ed to th e cal l. Hoyt to ld of fic ers Hard is on pu t a kn ife

to he r th ro at

, th reat en ed to ki ll he r, an d th en he ld a gu n to he r he ad

, ag ai n th reat en in g

to ki ll he r. Offic er Tren t Go ld ap pr oa ch ed Hard is on , who was th en st an di ng in si de

hi s res id en ce at the fro nt do or , to as k Hardi so n if the y co ul d sp eak in si de th e ho m e.

Hard is on rep li ed , “ su re.”

Ano th er of

fic er, Serg ean t Brad Fi en en , arri ve d on th e sc en e la te r whi le Offi cer

Gol d was in si de th e ho m e wit h Hard is on

. Serg ean t Fi en en en te red th e res id en ce an d

as ke d Hard is on if he ha d a gu n in si de th e ho m e. Hard is on po in te d to a gr een du ffel

ba g an d to ld Serg ean t Fi en en , “ Th e o n l y g u n I ha ve is in th ere.” Serg ean t Fi en en

se cu red th e gu n fro m th e ba g an d, be cau se he ob se rv ed it di d no t m at ch Hoyt’s

de sc rip ti on of th e gu n Hard is on th reat en ed he r wit h, as ke d Hard is on if he ha d an ot he r

fir earm

. Afte r he si ta ti ng , Hard is on to ld th e of fic ers th er e w a s a no th er gu n, le d th e

of fic ers to th e be dr oo m , an d sa id whi le po i n t i n g i n th e ro om , “ In th e du ct wor k,

th ere’s a gu n do wn th ere. You can go ge t it .” Serg ean t Fi en en rem ov ed th e gr at e to

th e ai r co nd it io ni ng an d ret rie ve d a se co nd fir earm , whi c h d i d m at ch Hoyt’s

The Hon or ab le M. Dou g l a s H a r po ol

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 3

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-de sc rip ti on

. Hard is on to ld th e of fic ers he kn ew he was no t su pp os ed to be in

po ss es si on of a fir earm

as a fel on an d h e k ne w he was go in g t o p ris on

.

The gr an d jury ret ur ne d a on e-co un t in di ct m en t ch arg in g Hard is on wit h be in g

a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g ) ( 1 ) a nd

92 4( a)(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t is s u e d a s c he du li ng an d tri al or de r on Decem be r 19

, 20 14

, req ui rin g th e pa rti es to fil e al l pret ria l m ot io ns on or be fo re twen ty da y s fro m

th at da te

. Hard is on ’s be nc h tri al was sc he du le d to be gi n Ju ne 15

, 20 15

. On Ju ne 12

, 20 15

, th e Fri da y be fo re Ha r d i s o n ’s Mo nd ay tri al da te an d well -p as t th e co ur t’s

de ad li ne fo r fil in g pr et ria l m ot io ns , Hard is on fil ed a m ot io n to su pp res s al l ev id en ce

ob ta in ed “ as a res ul t of th e Nov em be r 27

, 20 13

, de te nt io n, se iz ur e, arre st

, an d se arch

of [Hard is on ]. ” Hard is on “ req ue st [ed ] an ev id en ti ary he ari ng be gr an te d or th at th e

mat te r b e p er mit te d t o b e ta ken up wit h h is be nc h t ri al .” (Em ph as is ad de d)

.

Hard is on ’s be nc h tri al co m m en ced on sc he du le

. Ci ti ng co nc ern s fo r effi ci en cy

an d fai rn es s “ gi ve n th e ti m in g,” th e di st ric t co ur t “ de ci de d th e be s t w ay to ta ke

up

. . . th e pr op rie ty of th e ev id en ce is to si m pl y rece iv e ev id en ce on th e su pp res si on

m ot io n at th e sa m e ti m e [it ] he ar[s ] th e ev id en ce rel at ed to th e tri al an d th en th e Co ur t

wil l no t co ns id er th at ev id en ce th at it be l i e v e s s ho ul d be su pp res se d if th e Co ur t

reac he s th at co nc lu si on .” Neit he r pa rty ob jecte d to pr oc eed in g in th is m an ne r, a

m an ne r H ar dis on in it ia ll y ha d pr op os ed

, an d co un se l fo r bo th pa rti es ex pl ic it ly ag reed

to th e p ro ced ur e.

The go ve rn m en t in tro du ced se ve ral ex hi bi ts of ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a r es ul t

of th e se arch of Hard is on ’s ho m e, an d th e di st ric t cou rt no te d it wou ld “ as su m e th at
[Hard is on ] ha [s ] an ob

jecti on to th e ex hi bi ts an d th e te st im on y of wha t ha pp en ed aft er [th e of fic er] go es in th e ho m e,” an d wou ld no t “ m ak e an y fin al ru li ng on th e

ad m is si bi li ty of th at ev id en ce” un ti l aft er th e tri al was co m pl et ed

. Hard is on was th e

on ly wit ne ss fo r th e de fen se

. Neit he r Hard is on no r hi s at to rn ey cl ari fie d th at

Hard is on in te nd ed hi s te st im on y to be li m it ed to th e is su e of su pp res si on

. Hard is on

-3

-te st ifi ed he di d no t co ns en t to a se arch an d he ha d so le do m in io n an d co nt ro l ov er th e

res id en ce. Hard is on ’s at to rn ey ob jecte d to on ly on e qu es ti on —“ Is n’t it tru e th at th e

of fic er fo un d weap on s an d fir earm s at y ou r ho m e on Nov em be r 27

, 20 13 ? ” —an d th e 4

di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed Hard is on ’s an swe r pe nd in g it s de ci si on as to th e su pp res si on

m ot io n.

Two week s aft er th e tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed an or de r de nyin g Hard is on ’s

m ot io n to su pp res s, fin di ng Hard is on vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d t o th e se arch

. In a

se pa rat e or de r, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Hard is on kn ow i n g l y po ss es se d fir earm s, as

ev id en ced by Hard is on te ll in g “ th e of fic ers whe re in th e res id en ce th e weap on s co ul d

be fo un d. The fir earm s were fo un d in [Hard is on ’s] ho m e, he te st ifi ed th at he pl aced

t he m th ere, an d he te st ifi ed th at he res id es al on e an d ex erci se s co m pl et e d o mi n i o n

an d con tro l ov er hi s res id en ce.” The di st ric t co ur t fo un d Hard is on gu il ty of be in g a

fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Hard is on fil ed nu m ero us pr o se m ot io ns , in cl ud in g

a pr o se m ot io n fo r a ne w tri al

, al l of whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed

. Hard is on fil ed

a ti m el y no ti ce of ap pe al “ fro m th e jud ge m en t [s ic ] an d se nt en ce” of t h e di st ric t

co ur t.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Combine d Ev id enti ar y H ea ri ng an d Ben ch Tr ia l

Hard is on as se rts th e co m

bi ne d ev id en ti ary he ari ng an d be nc h tri al an d th e us e

of hi s suppr es sio n te sti m on y in as se ss in g hi s gu il t am ou nt to co ns ti tu ti on al

, st ru ct ur al

,

a n d p l a i n e r r o r. Hard is on fir st no te s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in “ fai li ng to ru le on

de fen da nt [’s] pr et ria l Mo ti on to Su pp res s be fo re tri al .” It is wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s

di sc ret io n no t to ho ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng at al l, see Unit ed St at es v. Los in g, 53 9

F.2 d 11 74

, 11 77 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 7 6 )

, an d, whi le “ [t]he co ur t m us t de ci de ev ery pr et ria l

Thi s is a ne ga ti ve an d co nf us in g qu es ti on fo r th e wit ne ss an d fact fin de r an d 4

al so in va de s th e pr ov in ce of th e fact fin de r as to wha t i s tru e. A pr op er qu es ti on

wou ld be : “ Did th e o ffi cer f in d fi rear m s at y ou r ho m e o n No ve m be r 27 , 20 13 ? ”

-4

-m ot io n be fo re tri al un le ss it fin ds go od cau se to de fer a ru li ng , ” F e d

. R. Cri m

. P.

12 (d ), th ere is cert ai nl y go od cau se to de fer a ru li n g whe re th e de fen da nt fil es hi s

m ot io n th e F r i d a y be fo re hi s Mo nd ay be nc h tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Dit tu s, 45 3

F.2 d 13 35

, 13 36 (3 d Ci r. 19 72 ) (fi nd in g go od cau se to di sa ll ow a su pp res si on he ari ng

whe re an ev id en ti ar y h eari ng wou ld ha ve de la y ed th e st art of tri al ). Und er th e

ci rcu m st an ces of th is cas e, th e s h or t ti m e pe rio d be fo re tri al an d th e co nc ern fo r

effi ci en cy in pr es en ti ng ev id en ce su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to co m bi ne th e

ev id en ti ary he ari ng wit h Hard is on ’s be nc h tri al

, an d to de fer ru li ng on th e m ot io n to

su pp res s u nt il all ev id en ce h ad be en pre se nt ed

. 5

W e li ke wis e fin d no st ru ct ur al erro r “ un de rm in in g th e fa i r ne ss of a cri m in al

pr oc eed in g as a who le ,” Uni te d St at es v. Dom in gu ez Ben it ez, 54 2 U.S. 74

, 81 (2 00 4)

,

as Hard is on co ns en te d to

, an d i nd eed su gg es te d, t he sp eci fic pro ced ur e u se d b y th e

di st ric t c o u r t

. Thi s is no t on e of th e “ ve ry li m it ed cl as s of cas es ” am ou nt in g to

st ru ct ur al erro r req ui rin g au to m at ic rev ers al

. Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 52 0 U.S. 46 1,

46 8 (1 99 7) ; s ee al so Nede r v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 27 U.S. 1, 8 (1 99 9) (li st in g ex am pl es

of st ru ct ur al erro r, in cl ud in g “ co m pl et e de ni al of co un se l,” “ raci al di sc riminat io n in

se le ct io n o f gr an d ju ry ,” an d “ de ni al of p ub li c tr ia l” ).

Hard is on cl ai m s a co ns ti tu ti on al erro r oc cu rred whe n th e di st ric t co ur t

im pr op erl y co ns id ered hi s su pp res si on te st im on y fo r th e pu rp os e of de te rm in in g hi s

gu il t. “ [W] he n a def

en da nt tes ti fie s i n s up po rt o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce o n

W e no te it wou ld ha ve be en wit hi n th e di st ric t cou rt’s di sc ret io n to refu se to 5

co ns id er Hard is on ’s m ot io n to su pp res s be cau se th e m ot io n was un ti m el y , h av in g fil ed th e m ot io n fi ve m on th s af te r th e d ead li ne for

fil in g p ret ria l m ot io ns

. See F ed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (c)( 3) (“If a p a r t y d o es no t m eet th e de ad li ne fo r m ak in g a [p ret ria l]

m ot io n, th e m ot io n is un ti m el y

. Bu t a co ur t m ay co ns id er th e de fen se , ob jecti on , or

req ue st if th e pa rty s h o w s g oo d cau se .”); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Tran ch eff, 63 3

F.3 d 69 6, 69 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ The de si re to su pp res s in cri m in at in g ev id en ce an d th e

ret en ti on of ne w co un se l are no t by th em se lv es su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h go od cau se to jus ti fy rel ie f fro m

a waiv er o f a d efen se , ob jecti on , or re qu es t u nd er Ru le 12 .”).

-5

-Fo ur

th A m en dm en t gr oun ds

, hi s te st im on y m ay no t th erea fte r be ad m it te d ag ai ns t him

at tri al on th e is su e of gu il t un le ss he m ak es no ob jecti on .” Si m

m on s v. Uni te d St at es , 39 0 U.S. 37 7, 39 4 (1 96 8)

. Hard is on ex pr es sl y req ue st ed hi s m ot io n to su pp res s “ be

pe rm it te d to be ta ke n up wit h hi s be nc h tri al ,” an d Hard is on ’s at to rn ey affi rm at iv el y

co ns en te d to th e pr oc ed ur e on th e da y of tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t di d as su m e Hard is on

ha d “ an ob

jecti on to th e ex hi bi ts a n d t he te st im on y of wha t ha pp en ed aft er he go es

in th e ho m e” du e to Hard is on ’s m ot io n to su pp r es s su ch ev id en ce, an d Hard is on ’s

at to rn ey m ad e a “ li m it ed ob jecti on ” to th e ad m is si bi li ty of Hard is on ’s an swe r to on e

go ve rn m en t qu es ti on du rin g cro ss -ex am ina tion, be cau se Hard is on ’s an swe r “ m ay ge t

in to ev id en ce th at wou ld be su pp res si bl e.” It is no t cl ear fro m th e reco rd whe th er th e

“ li m it ed ” ob

jecti o n w a s in te nd ed to li m it Hard is on ’s te st im on y to th e m ot io n to

su pp res s, or whe th er th e ob jecti on was m erel y pr es erv in g Hard is on ’s ob jecti on to th e

us e o f an y

ev id en ce o bt ai ne d a s a r es ul t o f th e se arch

.

Hard is on co nt en ds th is ob jecti on was a n “ at te m

pt [] to lim it th e te st im on y fo r

th e pu rp os e of th e su pp res si on m ot io n on ly,” b ut ack no wled ge d a t o ral arg um en t it

was no t cl ear if th is ob jecti on was ba se d o n t h e po te nt ia l Si m m on s vi ol at io n.

Hard i s o n n e v e r cl earl y st at ed he was ob jecti ng to th e po te nt ia l us e of Hard is on ’s

te st im on y to ev al ua te hi s gu il t. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 99 4 F.2d 12 87

, 12 94
(8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ ‘Prese rv in g an is su e is a m at te r of

. . . cl earl y st at in g th e gr ou nd s fo r

th e ob jecti on , so th at th e tri al co ur t ha s an op po rtu ni ty to pr ev en t or co rrec t th e erro r

in th e fir st in st an ce.’” ( qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Tho rn bu rg , 84 4 F .2d 57 3, 5 75 (8 th

Ci r. 19 88 ))). At no po in t, ei th er be fo re or du rin g Hard is on ’s te st im on y , di d Hard is on

or hi s at to rn ey ex pl ic it ly req ue st Hard is on ’s te st im on y be li m it ed on ly to th e m ot io n

to su pp res s. S i mm on s ex pr es sl y al lo ws a fact fin de r to co ns id er te st im on y

6

Hard is on as se rte d at or al argu m en t th e di st ric t co ur t was ob li ga te d to warn hi m 6

th e co ur t wou ld us e h i s te st im on y to de te rm in e th e m eri ts of th e cas e an d, wit ho ut

su ch a warn in g, an y waiv er was no t fu ll y kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. Hard is on di d no t
fu ll y rai se an d ad dr es s th is arg um en t in hi s o p e n i n g br ie f an d was un ab le at or al

arg um en t to ci te to an y su pp or t fo r th e pr op os it io n Si m m on s req ui res a kn owi ng

-6

-in tro du ced on a m ot io n to su pp res s al so du rin g th e m eri ts of th e cas e if th e de fen da nt

fai ls to ob ject to su ch us e. Si m

m on s, 39 0 U.S. at 39 4; cf. Uni te d St at es v. Po lk

, 57 4

F.2 d 96 4, 96 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (rea so ni ng th e de fen da nt ’s te st im on y at th e su pp res si on

he ari ng co ul d be co ns id ered at th e su bs eq ue nt be nc h tri al whe re “ co un se l ha d ag reed

th a t e v i d e n ce pr es en te d at th e su pp res si on he ari ng co ul d be co ns id ered by th e tri al

co ur t i n d eci di ng th e m eri ts ”).

Hard is on fu rth er arg ue s, ev en in th e ab se nc e of an y st ru ct ur al or co ns ti tu ti on al

erro r, th e d is tri ct co ur t’s use of hi s tes ti m on y to de te rm in e h is gu il t was pl ai n e rro r.

See Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3, 55 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( e n ba nc ). Bec au se

th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to fin d Hard is on gu il ty of th e ch arg ed of fen se wit ho ut

co ns id eri ng hi s te st im on y , th ere was no pl ai n erro r “ ‘seri ou sl y affe ct [in g] the fa ir ne ss,

in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Olan o, 50 7

U.S. 72 5, 7 32 (19 93 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . You ng , 47 0 U.S. 1 , 15 (19 85 )).

B. Deni al of Mo tio n to Suppr es s a nd Mo tio n fo r a New Tri al

Hard is on ne xt co nt en ds th e ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g th e se arch of hi s ho m e

sh ou ld ha ve be en s u p p r e s s e d be cau se th e of fic ers di d no t ha ve a warra nt an d

Hard is on di d n ot vo lu nt ari ly con se nt to th e se arch

.

Hard is o n cl ai m s hi s co ns en t was li m it ed to al lo win g Offi cer Gol d in si de hi s

ho m e fo r a co nv ers at io n , a n d th e of fic ers ex ceed ed th e sc op e of hi s co ns en t whe n

th ey se arch ed

. Co ns en t do es no t n e e d t o be ex pl ic it to be va li d. See Uni te d St at es

v. Lak os ke y , 46 2 F.3 d 96 5, 97 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). “ The pr eci se qu es ti on is no t whe th er [th e de fen da nt ] co ns en te d su bjec ti ve ly, bu t whe th er hi s co nd uc t wou ld ha ve cau se d

a reas on ab le pe rs on to be li ev e th at he co ns en te d.” Uni te d Stat es v. Jo ne s, 25 4 F.3 d

69 2, 6 95 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

waiv er o f co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, an d we d ecl in e to ad dr es s t hi s i ss ue to da y

.

-7

-H a r d i s o n r e pl ie d “ su re” to th e of fic er’s req ue st to sp eak wit h hi m in si de th e

ho m e. W he n in si de an d as ke d if “ th ere was a gu n in th e res id en ce,” Hard is on po in te d

to a gr een du ffel ba g in th e ha l l w a y an d sa id

, “ The on ly gu n I ha ve is in th ere.”

Hard is on di d n ot ob

ject t o a su bs eq ue nt sea rch of th at ba g. When th e o ffi cer a sk ed

ab ou t an ot he r gu n, ex pl ai ni ng th e gu n in th e du ffel ba g was no t th e fir earm Hoyt ha d

de sc rib ed

, Hard is on di rect ed th e of fic ers to whe re he ke pt a s e co nd gu n in hi s

be dr oo m ai r co nd it io ni ng du ct wor k. Hard is on to ld th e of fic ers th ey co ul d “ go ge t it .”

Eve n if Hardi so n n ev er ex pr es sl y co ns en te d t o t he sea rch of h is ba g th at un co ve red

th e fir st fir earm , he was “ pr es en t an d fai l[e d] to ob je c t t o t h e co nt in ua ti on of a

se arch ,” whi ch is “ ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce [th at ] pr ov id e[s ] p r o o f th at th e se arch

co nd uc te d was wit hi n t he sc op e of co ns en t.” Un it ed Sta te s v . Beck m an n, 7 86 F.3d

6 7 2, 67 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Hard is on ’s co nd uc t wou ld cau se a reas on ab le p e r s o n t o

be li ev e h e co ns en te d t o t he sea rch

.

Thi s co ns en t was al so vo lu nt ary u nd er th e to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces

. See

Sch ne ck lo th v. Bu st am on te , 41 2 U.S. 2 18 , 22 7 (1 97 3) . Hardi so n n ot es th e o ffi cers

ne ve r ad vi se d hi m he ha d th e rig ht to refu se co ns en t, y et

, “ [w]hil e kn owl ed ge of th e rig ht to refu se co ns en t is on e fact or to be ta ke n in to acco un t, th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t

es ta bl is h su ch kn owl ed ge as th e si ne qu a no n of an effe ct iv e co ns en t

. ” I d

. And

co nt rary to Hard is on ’s su gg es ti on , th e fact m ul ti pl e of f i c e r s w ere pr es en t whe n

Hard is on co ns en te d do es no t, by it se lf, de m on st rat e Hard is on was un du ly co erce d to

co n s e n t

. S e e Uni te d St at es v. Dray to n, 53 6 U.S. 19 4, 20 5 (2 00 2)

. Offi cer Gol d

te st ifi ed he di d n o t y el l, dr aw hi s weap on , or ot he rwis e th reat en or in ti m id at e

Hard is on in an y way , an d Offi cer Gol d de sc rib ed Hard is on as po li te an d no t ag it at ed

du rin g th ei r co nv er s a t io n. The po li ce rep or t do es no te Hard is on ex hi bi te d si gn s of

be in g in to xi cat ed

, bu t “ th e ev id en ce do es no t su gg es t th at he was so in to xi cat ed th at

he was no t ‘com

pe te nt to un de rs ta nd th e na tu re of hi s act s.’” Uni te d St at es v. W il li e,

46 2 F.3 d 89 2, 89 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ram bo

, 78 9 F.2 d 12 89

, 12 97 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 )). The rem ai ni ng c h a r a c t e r is ti cs of Hard is on an d th e

si tu at io n— Hard is on ’s ag e of 5 2 ye a r s , hi s pr io r ex pe rie nc e wit h la w en fo rcem en t,

-8

-th e fact Hard is on was no t res tra in ed whe n he g a ve co ns en t, an d hi s in te ll ig en ce

de m on st rat ed by m

ul ti pl e pr o se m ot io ns arg ui ng Fo ur th Am en dm en t is su es —s ho w

th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl ear l y e r r in fin di ng Hard is on vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d.

See Uni te d St at es v. Garci a, 61 3 F.3 d 74 9, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ W he th er co ns en t is

vo lu nt ary is a qu es ti on of fact

, rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r.”). The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y

de ni ed Hard is on ’s m ot io n to su pp r e ss th e ev id en ce an d di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. 7

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Bec au se th e co m

bi ne d ev id en ti ary su pp res si on he ari ng an d be nc h tri al

, un de r

th e ci rcu m st an ces , was no t erro r, s t r u c tu ral or ot he rwis e, an d Hard is on vo lu nt ari ly

co ns en te d t o t he sea rch of h is ho m e, we affi rm

.

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

On ap pe al

, H a r d i s o n ap pe ars to arg ue th e of fic ers ne ed ed a warra nt to en te r 7

hi s ho us e be cau se , at th e ti m e of th e se arch

, th ey al read y ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st
Hard is on

. Hard is on di d no t rai se th is arg um en t in hi s su pp res si on m ot io n or m ot io n fo r a ne w t ria l, bu t, ev en if he ha d, th e di st ric t co ur t s t i l l wou ld no t ha ve ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e m ot io n be cau se th e of fic ers were no t en te rin g Har d i s o n’s
ho m e to m ak e an arre st an d, as di sc us se d ab ov e, Hard is on vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d t o

t h e s e a rch

. See Payton v. New Yor k, 44 5 U.S. 57 3, 57 6 (1 98 0) (“ [T]he Fo u r t h

Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on

. . . p ro hi bi ts th e po li ce fro m m ak in g

a warra nt le ss an d no nc on se ns ua l en try i n t o a su sp ect ’s ho m e in or de r to m ak e a

ro ut in e fel on y

arre st .” (Em

ph as is ad de d) ).

-9

-