FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ULY 31, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1426 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-03014 -CV -T CB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, v e r s u s $ 2 9 1 , 8 2 8 . 0 0 I n Un i t e dS t a t e s C u rr e n c y, $97, 621. 44 S ei ze d F ro m

Bank o f A m er ic a A cc ount N o. X X X X X X 6507 I n th e N am e of Ro be rt Br ad dy Hol di ng s, In c., ASSORTED ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT; ASSORTED JEWEL RY, D ef en dants , ROBERT L. BRADDY, ROB ER T B RAD DYHO LD IN GS , L LC , Cl ai m an ts- Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 31 , 200 8)Honora ble Ing e P. J ohnson, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d J OHNSON, * District Judge. PE R CU RIA M: Ro be rt L . Br ad dy

appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t i n favor of the gov er

nm en t i n an inr em

c ivi l f or fe iture pr oc ee din g br ough t purs uant to 21 U.S .C. § 881(a)(7) against m oney , j ew elry and electronic equipm ent seized fro m Brad dy’ s h om e at58 0 R oc k S pr in gs Co ur t, At la nt a Geo rg ia . So m et im e be tw ee n 1: 00 a . m . and 2 :00 a . m . , Jun e 19, 200 5, w hil e out of town, B raddy

wa s contacted by

a re presentative of A DT Alarm and inform ed that his bu rglar alarm

had been set off. H e w as asked by AD T if the police shou ld be di sp at ch edto hi s h om e to in ve st ig at e a p os si bl e b reak -in an d B rad dy repl ie d yes. Br ad dy the n c ont ac te d B re tt Bo sto n, alon g ti m e ac qua int an ce , and a ske d B ost on to m ee t the pol ic e at

Br ad dy ’ s ho m e. B ra ddy a lso inf orm ed Bo sto n w he re to fi nd ane xtr a ke y

f or the hom e. O ff

ic er G en t arr ive d a t B ra ddy ’ s r es ide nc e w he re he m et Bo sto n and m ad e anini tia l sw ee p of the thr ee sto ry

hom e. G en t ha d a lr ea dy ca lle d f or ba ck -u p. Whe n O ff

ic er V iol ette arr ive d a t the sc en e, G en t and V iol ette m ade a sec ond sweep through the property . During this secondsearc h, G ent saw tw o e m pty c er ea l bo xe s onthe kit ch enf loo r an d an op enle dge r not eb ook w ith3

na m es an d a m ou nt s o f m on ey wit h t he word“ owe ” wri tt en be si de each na m e. Gen t al so saw fo urun op en edHit ach i p la sm a te le vi si on s i n t he ga rag e. E ith er be tw ee n th e fi rs t and s ec ond se ar ch , or a ft er the se co nd s earc h, G en t le ar ne d th er e w as an ou tst an din g w ar rant f or Bo sto n’ s arr es t f

or apr oba tio n vio la tio n onapr ior

m ar ij uanac onvi ct ion . G en t arr es te d B ost on. I n th e pr oc es s of Bo sto n’ s arr es t and m ovi ng B ost on’ s c ar w ithhis c onse nt, G en t de te ct ed astr ong od orof m ari

juan a, as well as s cal es an d a m on ey co un te r in th e b acksea t. Ge nt inform ed De tective Ulbado Rios of his finding s, and Rios swore out an af fi d av i tb as ed o n Ge n t ’s fi n d i n g s an do b t ai n ed a s ea rc h wa rr an tfo r B ra d dy’ s pr ope rty . Upon ex ec uti on o f the w ar rant, num er ous ite m s w er e se iz ed . T he gove rn m en t f

ile d ac ivi l f

or fe iture c om

pla int pur suant t o 21 U . S. C. § 88 1( a) (6 ) in co nne ct ionw iththe m one y , j ew el ry and e le ctro nic e qui pm en t se iz ed f ro m Br ad dy ’ s ho m e. I n th e dis tr ic t c ourt, both part ie s m ove d f or sum m ar y j udgm en t an d B ra ddy

a lso m ove d to sup pr es s th e ev ide nc e se iz ed f ro m his hom e on the the or y that the se co nd s earc h of his pr em ise s vi olate d hi s F ourth A m en dm en t ri ght s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the gov er

nm en t and against Braddy , holding th at sufficient, independent ly -derived, evidence supp orted a finding that th e governm ent m et its burden to p rove that the seized property wa s subject to forf

eiture as having been furnished in exchang e for a4

co nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc e o r co ns ti tu ti ng pro ceed s fr om th e sa m e. O n a ppe al , the part ie s’ arg um en ts f oc us o n w he the r the re w er e ex ige nt ci rc um stanc es suf

fi ci en t t o j ust if

y the se co nd s w ee p of

the pr ope rty

w ith out Br ad dy ’ s c onse nt and w ith out aw ar rant. B ra ddy

f urthe r ar gue s th at

the w ar rant obt ai ne d a ft er

the se co nd s earc h is inv al id b ec au se it w as ba se d one vid en ce f ro m the se co nd s earc h. B ra ddy a sse rt s th at

the gov er

nm en t ul tim at el y

f ai le d to m ee t i ts bur de n th at

the pr ope rty

sho uld be f or fe ite d a s a ll ev ide nc e of il le ga l a ct ivi ty st emm edfro m

th e se co nd sea rch . T his c ourt r ev ie w s adis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p art y op po si ng th e m ot io n. Sk rt ic h v. T horton , 280 F . 3d 1 295, 129 9 ( 11 Ci r. 200 2) . S um m ar y j udgm en t i s th ap pr opr ia te if

the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, answ er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, and adm iss ion s of

f ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if any , sho wthe re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any

m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to j udgm en t a s a m atte r of law . F ed . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ; E be rh ar dt v . W at er s, 901 F . 2d 1 578, 158 0 ( 11 th Ci r. 199 0) . A ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s m ust be dr awn inBr ad dy ’ s f

av or . A nde rs on v. Li be rty Lobb y , Inc ., 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 25 5, 1 06 S.Ct . 25 02 , 91 L.Ed.2d 20 2 (1 98 6) . Property is subject to civil forfe iture under the Civil Asset Forf eiture Reform Ac t of 2000 (“ CAF RA” ), 18 U. S. C. § 981 (b) and 21 U. S. C. § 881 (b),5

w he n it w as “ use d, or

int en de d to be use d, in an y m an ne r or

part , to co m

m it, or to fa ci lit at e the c om

m iss ionof

” a dr ug tra ff ic kin g of fe nse that i s “puni sha

ble by m or e than on e y ear’ s im

pr iso nm en t. ” 21 U . S. C. § 88 1( a) (7 ). A ddi tio na lly , 21 U. S. C.A . § 881(a)( 6), specif ies the following property is subject to forf

eiture: A ll m one y s . . . f

ur nis he d or int en de d to be f

ur nis he d by any pe rs on i n ex ch an ge f

or ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce or

li ste d c he m ic al vio la tio n of thi s su bc ha pte r, a ll pr oc ee ds tra ce ab le to suc h an e xc hange , and a ll m one y s . . . use d or

int en de d to be use d to f

ac ili ta te any

vio la tio n of this chapter. 21 U. S. C.A . § 881(a)( 6). To o b t a i n c i v i l f

o r f e i tu r e , th e g o v e rn men tmu s t e s t ab l i s h b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

e vid en ce “ a subs tanti al c onne ct ionbe tw ee n th e pr ope rty and the of fe nse . ” 18 U . S. C. § 98 3( c) (1 ) an d ( 3) . T he gov er nm en t “ m ay

use both ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce and h ears ay , ” an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d e va luate the ev id en ce p res en te d wi th “ a co m m on sen se vi ew to th e rea li ti es of n or m al li fe.” U nit ed S ta te s v. F our

P ar ce ls o f Re al P ro pe rty , 941 F . 2d 1 428, 144 0 ( 11th Cir. 1991 ) (internal c itations and quot ation m arks om itted). T he governm ent m ay also use evidence gathered after the filing of the com

plaint for forfe iture to m eet its burden. 18 U. S. C. § 983 (c)( 2). T he m an ne r in whic h th e se iz ur e oc curr ed and the va lid ity

of the w ar rant obtained are at issue in this app eal. Sec tion 9 81(b) of Title 18, provides th atTh e re is n o e vid e nc e that any thi ngwa s seized

from B raddy ’s home prior to Ge nt 1 obtaining a

war rant. 6 se iz ur es m

ust be m ad e pur suant t o aw ar rant o r, if m ad e w ith out

aw ar rant, a t the tim e of the seizure there m ust be probabl e cause to believe the property is subject to f or fe iture and the se iz ur e m ust be m ad e pur suant t o alaw fu l arr es t or se ar chor pur suant t o so m e oth er

e xc ep tio n to the F ourth Am en dm en t w ar rant r equir em en t. 1 18 U . S. C. A . § 98 1( b) (2 )( B) . S ec tio n 98 1( b) a lso a llo w s f or se iz ur e w ith out

a w ar rant i f “ the pr ope rty

w as law fu lly

se iz ed by aS ta te or

loc al lawe nf

or ce m en t ag en cy and transf

er re d to aF ed er al a ge nc y . ” 18 U . S. C. A . § 98 1( b) (2 )( C) . T he Fo urth A m en dm en t e xc lus ion ar y r ule appl ie s to c ivi l f

or fe iture a ct ion s. O ne 195 8 Pl ym outh S ed an

v. P en nsy lvania , 380 U . S. 693 , 702 , 85 S . Ct . 124 6, 125 0, 14 L . E d. 2d 1 70 ( 1965 ). H ow ev er , e ve n if e vid en ce is subj ec t t o su ppr es sio n, the go ve rn m en t m ay

ob ta in for fei tu re b as edon ot he r in de pe nd en t ev id en ce. Id . Se ar ch es ins ide ar es ide nc e w ith out aw ar rant are pr es um

pti ve ly unreasonable, absent either probable cause or exigent circum stances. United States v. Santa, 236 F.3d 662, 668 (11 Cir. 2000 ). “ The e xigent circum stances th exception to th e re quirem ent recognizes a w arrantless entry by crim inal law enforcem ent officials m ay be legal w hen there is a com pelling need for off

icial ac tio n and n o ti m e to s ec ur e a w ar rant. ” Ba shi r v. Ro ck da le Co unty , 445 F . 3d7

1323 , 132 8 ( 11 Ci r. 200 6) . T he e xc ep tio n a ppl ie s on ly

if the pol ic e re as ona

bly th be lie ve that an e m er ge nc y sit ua tio n j ust if

ie d w ar rantl es s a ct ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. H oll ow ay , 290 F . 3d 1 331, 133 7 ( 11 Ci r. 200 2) . Ase co nd e xc ep tio n th [t ] o th e Fo urth A m en dm en t r ule or din ar ily

pr ohi bit ing the w ar

rantl es s entry of a per son’s house as unreasonable per se, Pay ton v. Ne w York, 445 U.S . 573, 586, 100 S. Ct. 1371 , 63 L .E d.2d 639 (198 0); Co oli dge v. N ewH am

pshi re , 403 U . S. 443 , 454 -4 55, 91 S . Ct . 202 2, 29 L . E d. 2d 5 64 ( 1971 ) . . . . [ is] the va lid ity of se ar ch es w iththe volu ntary consent of an indiv idual po ssessin g authority , R odriguez, 497 U . S. , a t 18 1, 110 S . Ct . 279 3. T ha t pe rs on m igh t be the hous eh old er

a ga ins t w hom

e vid en ce is soug ht, S ch ne ck loth v. Bu stam ont e, 412 U . S. 218 , 222 , 93 S . Ct . 204 1, 36 L . E d. 2d 8 54 (1 97 3) .... Ge orgia v. Randol ph, 547 U. S. 103, 109, 126 S.Ct. 1515 , 1520 (2006). Bo th b ef or e the dis tr ic t c ourt and h er e, Br ad dy c ont en ds tha t G en t’ s and V iol ette ’ s se co nd p ro te ct ive sw ee p of the pr ope rty

w as not w ith in the e xig en t circum stances exception to th e need for a w arrant. T he parties agree that the open ce re al box es and l ed ge r w er e not obs er ve d by G en t pr ior

to the se co nd s w ee p. T he ev ide nc e es ta

bli she d th at

the se ar chw ar

rant w as pr oc ur ed

ba se d onthe se and ot he r ob se rv at io ns m ad e dur in g t he sec on d s weep . The c onsti tutio nal validityof a w arrantless search is pre-em inentlythe sort of que sti on whic h c anonl y be de ci de d inthe c onc re te f ac tua l c ont ex t of

the ind ivi dua l c as e. S ibr on v . N ewY ork, 392 U . S. 40, 59, 88 S . Ct . 188 9, 190 1, 20A re quest by a prope rty

owner to the police to sea

rch a home for a

burg lar may , in and of 1 its e lf c re ate “ e xig e nt c ir c ums tanc e s. ” Re qu e sts by the pr op e rt

y owne r o f t

he po lic e to i nv e sti g ate a burg lar a larm could a lso be consider ed “c onsent” for the sea rch of the home. Howe ver w e do no t r e a c h th e iss ue of

c on se nt t o th e se arc h a s it wa s n ot a

rgue d to the Di str ic t Co ur t no r r a ise d in briefs to this court. 8 L . E d. 2d 9 17, 932 ( 1968 ). H er e, O ff ic er G en t kn ewhe w as c al le d to ar es ide nc e in t h e mi d d l e o f

th e n i g h tb e c au s e ab u r g l a r a l a rm h a ds o u n d e d . H e kn e wth e h o me ow ne r ha d r eque ste d th e pol ic e to i nve sti ga te the pos sib le bur glary . P ri or to the arrival of Violette, Ge nt too k a “ quick walk” through th e re sidence. Once a s e c o n do f f i c e r arr i v e d , th e o f

f i c e r s t o g e t h e r

mad e as e c o n ds w e e p o f th e p r o p e rt y, a m ult i- sto ri ed

apartm en t, a ga in t o lo ok f or an in tr ude r. Af ai rl y pe rc ei ve d ne ed

to ac t onthe spo t t o pr es er

ve e vid en ce m ay

j ust if y e ntr y and s earc h un de r the e xig en t ci rc um stanc es e xc ep tio n to the w ar rant r equir em en t. G eo rg iav. Randol ph, 547 U . S. 103 , 117 , 126 S . Ct . 151 5, 152 5 n. 6 ( U . S. 2006 ), c iti ng c f. S ch m er be r v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 4 U.S. 7 57 , 77 0- 77 1, 8 6 S .Ct. 1 82 6, 1 6 L.Ed .2d90 8 (1 96 6) . Ther e is no evidence nor argum ent that during this secondswee p the officer s lo ok edin an y

pl ace o th er t ha n wh ere a pe rs on co ul d b e fo un d. Braddy ’ s entire theory

of unlawful search re sts on the fac t that Gent w alked outsi de after

the “ quick walk” through andthen, w ith a second officer, re- entered the pr em ise s to m ak e sur e the re w as no i ntr ude r pr es en t. B ra ddy

doe s no t di sput e that he requested a police office r be sent to his hom e for this very purpose. 19

H ow ev er , Br ad dy

se em ing ly

w an ts this c ourt t o a dopt abr igh t l ine a s to how thoroug hly

officer s m ay

look for an intruder under these circum stances. Under Braddy ’ s argum ents, had G ent waited j ust ins ide the “ kicked in” back doo r, ex ige nt c ir cum stanc es w oul d st ill be in pla ce . S im ilarl y , ha d G en t he ar d and/ or seen an intruder and wa lked out side to m ake sure he had back-up before atte m pti ng an arr es t, e xig en t c ir cum stanc es w oul d no lon ge r ex ist and h e w oul d ha ve ha d to w ai t f

or aw ar rant t o r ee nte r the hom e. T he c ourt c an not dr awsuc h a br ig ht li ne forwhen ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ceas e to ex is t. G ive n th e uni que and unusu al f ac ts o f thi s c as e, w e fi nd tha t the e xig en t ci rc um stanc es e xc ep tio n to the F ourth A m en dm en t di d no t i nst an tane ousl y c ea se up on Gent walk in g o ut si de . When review ing a grant of summ ary j udgm ent, the court of a

ppeals m ay af fi rm if the re e xis ts any

a de qua te gr ound s f

or doi ng s o, r eg ar dle ss o f w he the r it is the one on whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d. S m ithv. A lle n, 502 F . 3d 1 255, 126 5 (1 1 Ci r. 2007 ); F itzpa tr ic k v. Ci ty of A tlanta , 2 F . 3d 1 112, 111 7 ( 11 Ci r. 199 3) th th (c itatio ns o m itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt he re not ed that B ra ddy

arg ue d th at

the se co nd s w ee p of

the pr ope rty

did not f al l w ith in the e xig en t c ir cum stanc es , but did not r ea chthat i ssu e. R athe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that w he the r or

not e xig en t ci rc um stanc es e xis te d a s of the se co nd s earc h, the gov er nm en t ha d a de qua te10

in de pe nd en tl y -d eri ve d e vi de nc e to m eetit s b ur de n. Be ca use w e fi nd tha t e xig en t c ir cum stanc es e xis te d, and the re fo re the ev ide nc e obt ai ne d a ft er

the se ar chw ar

rant i ssu ed

w as a dm iss ibl e, the r

uli ngs of the dis tr ic t c ourt, gr an tin g j udgm en t i n f av or of the appe lle e, and e nte ri ng the Or der of F orfeiture, are AF FIRMED .