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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 4- 15 02

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

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.

And rew Dav id Bran dwe in

,

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 effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

16 , 20 15
Fil ed : Au gu st 12 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, BEAM, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

And rew Bran dwe in was ch arg ed wit h un la wfu l po ss es si on of fir ear ms a s a

pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on an d at te m pt ed m an uf

act ur in g of m et ha m

ph et am in e.

Befo re t ria l, h e m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed du rin g a se arch of h is res id en cean d st at em en ts m ad e as a res ul t of th e se arch

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, 1

an d a jury co nv ic te d Br a n d w e i n of un la wfu l po ss es si on of a fir earm , bu t acq ui tt ed

hi m of t he m et ha m

ph et am in e ch arg e. Bran dwe in ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l

of hi s m ot io n t o s up pr es s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

On Ja nu ary 8, 20 11

, a sh ed on th e ru ral pr op ert y le as ed by And rew Bran dwe in

an d hi s wife

, Deb r a , cau gh t fir e. Two ne ig hb or s pl aced a cal l fo r em erg en cy

as si st an ce an d th en ap pr oa ch ed th e ne arb y ho us e whe re th e Bran dwe in s li ve d. One

of th e ne ig hb or s kn oc ke d on th e do or an d sh ou te d to de te rm in e if an y on e was pr es en t,

bu t rece iv ed no res po ns e. Co nc e r n e d t h a t a pi ck up tru ck pa rk ed ve ry cl os e to th e
bu rn in g sh ed wou ld cat ch fir e, th e ne ig hb or m ov ed th e tru ck us in g ke y s he fo un d in

th e tru ck ’s ig ni ti on . The nei gh bo r al so no ti ced a sm al l do g in si de th e pi ck up tru ck

,

an d a rif le layin g o n t he gro un d n ear t he tru ck

.

W he n Dep ut y Ar t h ur Bro wn of th e Co le Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri Sh eri ff’s
Dep art m en t arri ve d at th e sc en e at ap pr ox im at el y 7: 15 p.m ., th e fir e de pa rtment was

al read y pre se nt . A firef

ig ht er t ol d Bro wn ab ou t th e tru ck th at ha d be en m ov ed , t he

rif le

, an d th e sm al l do g. Bro wn th ou gh t all of th es e ci rcu m st an ces were su sp ic io us ,

an d he pl aced a cal l to Serg ean t Troy Thu rm an to req ue st hi s as si st a nc e at

ap pr ox im at el y 7: 30 p.m

. Afte r Serg ean t Thu rm an arri ve d at 7: 45 p. m

. , D eput y Bro wn
br ie fed hi m on in fo rm at io n he ha d le arn ed fro m th e fir efi gh te rs

. Thu rm an ex am in ed

th e rif le an d di sc ov ered th at it was lo ad ed

. He al so no te d th at th e rif le was fo un d in

wha t ap pe ared to be a m ak es hi ft fir in g ran ge co ns is ti ng of a sa nd ba g pl aced on a lo g.

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le Mat t J. Whit wor th , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-The two po li ce of fic ers sp ok e wit h th e so n of th e m an who own ed th e pr op ert y
whe re th e Bran dwe in s res id ed

. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers , he in fo rm ed th em th at al l

of th e Bran dwe in s’ ve hi cl es were p r e se nt on th e pr op ert y

. At th is po in t, se ve ral

em erg en cy ve hi cl es ha d res po n d e d t o th e sc en e, an d th ei r li gh ts an d si ren s ha d

op erat ed di rect ly o u t s id e of th e ho us e. Serg ean t Thu rm an an d Dep ut y Bro wn al so

kn oc k e d l o u d l y o n th e do or fo ur or fiv e ti m es an d an no un ced th ei r pr es en ce. The

of fic ers pr of

es se d co nc ern th at th e ci rcu m st an ces su gg es te d th at th ere m ay be in jure d

or de ceas ed pe rs on s in si de th e ho m e. The di st ric t co ur t, aft er ev al ua ti ng th e

te st im on y of th e of

fic ers , fo un d th at th ey were “ ve ry co nc ern ed fo r th e welf are of th e

res id en ts of th e ho m e an d as su m ed or su sp ect ed th ey were li ke ly in si de an d po ss ib ly

de ceas ed or i nju red .”

Afte r rece iv in g no res po ns e to th ei r kn oc ks

, th e of fic ers us ed th e ke y s th at ha d

be en fo un d in th e tru ck to en te r th e h o u s e

. Onc e in si de

, th ey ob se rv ed dr ug

pa rap he rn al ia i n p l a i n v i e w on th e di ni ng ro om ta bl e. The po li ce al so sa w se ve ral

fir earm s i n p la in vi ew in th e li vi ng roo m . The o ffi cers co nt in ue d to an no un ce t he ir

pr es en ce, and Bran dwe in em erg ed fro m th e m as te r be dr oo m

. He was fu ll y dr es se d,

swe at in g pr of

us el y , an d se em ed to be di so rie nt ed an d co nf us ed

. Bran dwe in in fo rm ed

th e o ffi cers th at Debr a was ou t s ho pp in g.

Deb ra cal le d th e Bran dwe in res id en ce at sh or tl y aft er 8 :0 0 p .m . and ret ur ne d

ho m e whe n sh e was in fo rm ed of th e fir e

. W he n Deb ra arri ve d at th e pr op ert y , Dete ct iv e Co li n Mu rd ic k fir st al lo wed he r to ch eck on he r hu sb an d. De te ct iv e

Mu rd ic k th en in te rv ie wed he r se pa rat el y , fir st o u t s i d e th e ho us e an d th en in th e

ki tc he n, ex pl ai ni n g th at he su sp ect ed th e fir e m ay ha ve be en cau se d by a

m et ha m ph et am in e la b. W hi le th ey were sp eak in g in t h e k it ch en , Mu rd ic k no ti ced

two la rg e gl as s jars c o n t a i n i n g a whi te res id ue th at he be li ev ed to be

m et ha m ph et a mi ne

. Acco rd in gl y , Mu rd ic k in fo rm ed Deb ra th at he was go in g to

se cu re th e res id en ce an d ap pl y fo r a se arch warra nt

. Offi cers to ld Deb ra th at sh e was

free to le av e, bu t th en acce de d to he r req ue st to st ay wit h he r hu sb a n d i n t h e li vi ng

-3

-ro om

. The of fic ers in st ru ct ed Deb ra n ot to to uc h a nyth in g, re ferr in g s pe ci fic al ly to

th e jars in th e k it ch en th at were b el ie ve d t o c on ta in m et ha m ph et am in e.

Dete ct iv e Mu rd ic k th en co nt act ed Serg ean t Sh an no n Jef fr ie s w ith the area dr ug

ta sk fo rce to req ue s t h i s as si st an ce, an d he arri ve d at ap pr ox im at el y 9: 00 p.m

. Mu rd ic k an d Je ffri es in te rv ie wed Deb ra a se co nd ti m e ou ts id e t h e h o us e. Je ffri es

as ke d Deb ra fo r pe rm is si on to se arch th e res id en ce. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at

Deb ra fir st as ke d Je ffri es why th ey wan te d to se arch th e ho us e, an d he res po nd ed th at

th e of fic ers ha d fo un d it em s as so ci at ed wit h th e m an uf act ur e of m et ha m

p h e t a mi ne

an d wan te d to de te rm in e if th ere were an y ot he r i l le ga l it em s in th e ho us e. The

di st ric t co ur t fo un d t ha t Deb ra t he n c on se nt ed to th e se arch

.

Dete c t i ve Mu rd ic k ret ur ne d to th e ki tc he n, whe re he sa w th at th e two jars

co nt ai ni ng th e whi te res id ue su sp ect ed to be m et ha m ph et am in e ha d be en was he d an d
pl aced in th e si nk

. Mu rd ic k as ke d Dep ut y Bro wn whet he r an y on e ha d acce ss ed th e

ki tc he n. Bro wn, who ha d no t be en aware of th e jars, res po nd ed th at he ha d pe rm it te d

Deb ra to fetc h a gl as s of water from th e k it ch en . Debra was p la ced un de r arre st fo r

su sp ect ed ta m

pe rin g wit h ev id en ce. Acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t, sh e la te r ad m it te d

to th e ta m pe rin g in an in te rv ie w at th e lo cal jail

. Bran dwe in al so m ad e in cri m in at in g

st at em en ts

. The g o ve rn m en t al le ge d th at Bran dwe in ad m it te d th at hi s wife ha d

cl ean ed th e jars, th at he us ed an d m an uf act ur ed m et ha m

ph et am in e, an d th at he own ed

on e o f th e fi rear m s fo un d i n t he res id en ce.

A gr an d jury ch arg ed Bran dwe in wit h th e un la wfu l po ss es si on of si x fir earm s

as a pr ev io us ly co nv ic te d fel on , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ),

an d at te m

pt ed m an uf

act ur in g of m et ha mp h e ta m in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(C)

, an d 84 6. He m ov ed to su pp res s al l ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g

th e se arch of hi s ho m e, in cl ud in g th e fir earm s, dr ug pa rap he rn al ia

, an d st at em en ts he

la te r m ad e to th e po li ce. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, ru li ng th at th e en try to

-4

-th e ho us e was pe rm is si bl e un de r th e “ co m m un it y care ta ke r” do ct rin e an d th at Deb ra

free ly and vo lu nt ari ly con se nt ed to th e se arch

.

II.

Bran dwe in co nt en ds on ap pe al th at po li ce vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t by

se arch in g h is ho us e. He co nt en ds th at ev id en ce fo un d i n t he ho us e, an d s ta te m en ts

m ad e aft er th e se arch

, sh ou ld ha ve be en su pp res se d as th e f r u i t s of an un la wfu l

se arch

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d it s

ap pl ic at io n o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t de no vo

.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t ge ne ral ly p ro hi bi ts po li ce fro m e n t e rin g a res id en ce
wit ho ut a warra nt

, Pay to n v. New Y or k , 4 4 5 U

. S

. 5 7 3 , 5 89 -9 0 (1 98 0) , b ut th ere are

ex cep ti on s to th e ru le

. One ex cep ti on , in vo ke d by th e go ve rn m en t he re, is th e

au th or it y of po li ce to un de rta ke so -cal le d “ co m m un it y care ta ki ng fu nc ti on s.” The se

are act iv it ie s “ to ta ll y di vo rced fro m th e de te ct io n , i nv es ti ga ti on , or acq ui si ti on of

ev id en ce rel at in g to th e vi ol at io n of a cri m in al st at ut e.” Ca d y v

. D o m b r ow sk i , 4 13

U.S. 43 3, 44 1, 44 7- 48 (1 97 3)

. The y in cl ud e act io ns “ un de r t a k e n to he lp th os e in

da ng er an d to pr ot ect pr op ert y .” Uni te d St at es v. Que za da

, 44 8 F.3 d 10 05

, 10 07 (8 th

Ci r. 20 06 ). Po li ce, th eref or e, m ay en te r a ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt

, in th e ex erci se of

co m m un it y care ta ki ng , “ whe re th e of fic er ha s a reas on ab le be li ef th at an em erg en cy

ex is ts req ui rin g hi s or he r at te nt io n.” Id

. at 10 07 ; se e Bur ke v. Su ll iv an , 67 7 F.3 d 36 7,

37 1 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

W he th er co m

m un it y care ta ki ng jus ti fie d th e warra nt le ss en try to Bran dwe in ’s

h o me p res en ts a de ba ta bl e qu es ti on he re. The di st ric t co ur t reas on ed th at De p u t y

Bro wn and Serg ean t Th ur m an reas on ab ly bel ie ve d th at so m eo ne li ke ly was pr es en t

in th e res id en ce an d in ne ed of as si st an ce. The go ve rn m en t de fen ds th is co nc lu si on , ci ti ng th e bu rn in g sh ed

, th e un at te nd ed lo ad ed rif le an d sm al l do g, th e of

fic ers ’ be li ef

-5

-b a s e d on th e pr es en ce of ve hi cl es th at so m eo ne li ke ly was ho m e, an d th e fai lu re o f

an y on e in si de th e h ou se to res po nd to kn oc ks , sh ou ts , li gh ts , and si ren s.

Bran dwe in co nt en ds th at t h e r e w a s no reas on ab le ba si s fo r be li ev in g th at an

em erg en cy ex is te d in hi s res id en ce, be cau se th ere was no si gn th at an y on e was ho m e

or was in jure d. He arg ue s th at th e of fic ers m is co ns tru ed st at em e nt s th at al l of th e

ve hi cl es on t h e pr op ert y be lo ng ed to th e Bran dwe in s to m ean th at al l of th e

Br an dw ei ns’ ve hi cl es were pr es en t, an d th eref or e dr ew an un reas on ab le inf er en ce tha t

so m eo ne m

us t be in si de

. In hi s vi ew, th e en try was a pr et ex t fo r in ve s t i g a t in g
cri m in al act iv it y

. Bran dwe in al so as se rts th at th e of fic ers di d no t en te r th e res id en ce

un ti l an ho ur aft er Dep ut y Bro wn fir st arri ve d, an d th at th is ti m in g su gg es ts th ey di d

no t re al ly bel ie ve th ere was an em erg en cy

.

W e m ay affi rm on an y gr ou nd su pp or te d by th e reco rd

, Uni te d St at es v. W el ls

, 34 7 F.3 d 28 0, 28 7 (8 th C i r

. 2 00 3)

, an d we fin d it un ne ces sa ry to res ol ve whe th er

co m m un it y care ta ki ng jus ti fie d th e en try. Eve n as su m in g fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s th at

th e ci rcu m st an ces fel l sh or t of su pp or ti ng a reas on ab le be li ef in th e ex is te nc e of an

em erg en cy , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Deb ra Bran dwe in la te r co ns en te d vo lu nt ari ly

to a se arch of th e res id en ce. W e co nc lu de th at he r co ns en t was su ffi ci en t to pu rg e an y

ta in t of an un la wfu l en try th at we wil l as su m e ha d oc cu rred an d to su pp or t ad m is si on

of th e d is pu te d e vi de nc e.

Br a n d w e i n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in fin di ng th at Deb ra’s

co ns en t was vo lu nt ary. His arg um en t rel ie s in pa rt on a ch al le ng e to th e co ur t’s

cred ib il it y fin di ng s. The di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed th e te st i mo n y o f t he of fic ers th at

Deb ra co ns en te d, and th is cred ib il it y fin di ng is vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on ap pe al

. The

co ur t, ci ti ng De b r a ’s e f

f o rts to pr ot ect he r hu sb an d by de st ro y in g ev id en ce in th e

ki tc he n, p erm is si bl y

reject ed Debr a’s co nt rary tes ti m on y as l ack in g i n c red ib il it y

.

-6

-B r an dwe in al so co nt en ds th at th e en vi ro nm en t in whi ch Deb ra co ns en te d

un de rm in es it s vo lu nt ari ne ss

. He cl ai m s th at po li ce of fic ers al read y ha d en te red th e
ho m e be fo re Debra arri ve d, th at po li ce es co rte d h er to th e res id en ce, tha t nu m ero us

of fic ers were pr es en t in th e ho m e, th at hi s own m ov em en t was res tri ct ed

, an d th at an

of fic er pr ev io us ly t ol d Deb ra t ha t po li ce were se cu rin g th e ho m e to ob ta in a se arch

warra nt

. Oth er ci rcu m st an ces , h o w e v e r , su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of

vo lu nt ari ne ss

. The di st ric t cou rt fou nd th at Deb ra gav e co ns en t whe n as ke d by two

of fic ers who di d no t m ak e an y th reat s or pr om is es

. Offi cers to ld Deb ra th at sh e was

free to le av e; al th ou gh sh e ch os e to st ay wit h he r hu s b a n d

, D eb ra was no t de ta in ed

or un de r arre st

. Tha t po li ce were pr es en t an d to ld Deb ra ab ou t effo rts to ob ta in a

se arch warra nt do es no t di ct at e a fin di ng th at la te r-g iv en co ns en t was th e pr od uc t of

c o e r c i on or du res s. Uni te d St at es v. W il li ams , 76 0 F.3 d 81 1, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 4 ) ;

Uni te d St at es v. Muh le nb ru ch

, 63 4 F.3 d 98 7

, 9 9 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v.

La rs on , 97 8 F.2 d 10 21

, 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). W e do no t th in k res tri ct io ns on

Bra nd wei n’ s m ov em en t un de rm in e th e di s t r i c t co ur t’s fin di ng ab ou t Deb ra ’s free

wil l. Und er th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th ere was n o c l e a r e r ro r in fin di ng

vo lu nt ary co ns en t.

To vi ti a t e t h e un la wfu ln es s of an en try, co ns en t to a se arch m us t be bo th

vo lu nt ary an d “ an in te rv en in g in de pe nd en t act of a free wil l” su ffi ci en t “ to pu rg e th e

pr im ary ta in t of th e un la wfu l in va si on .” Bro wn v. Ill in oi s , 42 2 U.S. 59 0, 59 8 (1 97 5)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e Uni te d St at es v. Gre er , 60 7 F.3 d 55 9, 56 3- 64
(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W he th er co ns en t su ffi ci en tl y di sp ers es th e ta in t of an un la wfu l en try

i s d e t e r mine d by refe ren ce to “ te m po ral pr ox im it y ” be twee n th e en try an d th e

co ns en t, “ th e pr es e n c e of in te rv en in g ci rcu m st an ces , an d, pa rti cu la rly, th e pu rp os e

an d fla gr an cy of th e of

fic ia l m is co nd uc t.” Bro wn , 42 2 U.S. at 60 3- 04 (in te rn al

ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Obs erv an ce of th e Mir an da ru le is al so rel ev an t whe re ap pl ic ab le

. Ka up p v . Texa s , 53 8 U.S. 6 26 , 63 3 (2 00 3)

.

-7

-The Su pr em e Co ur t pla ce s a pa rti cu la r em ph as is on an y “ pu rp os e an d fla gr an cy

of th e of fic ia l m is co nd uc t” in effe ct in g th e in it ia l il le ga l en try. Bro wn , 4 22 U.S. a t

60 3- 04 ; se e Gr eer , 60 7 F.3 d at 56 4. Alt ho ug h we ha ve as su m ed

, fo r th e sa ke of

an al y si s, th at th e in it ia l en try t o Br a n dwe in ’s h om e was un la wfu l, th e di st ric t co ur t

fo un d no ba d fai th by th e of fic ers

. The co u r t f

o u n d th at Bro wn an d Thu rm an
si nc erel y be li ev ed th at an em erg en cy was un fo ld in g in th e ho us e an d su sp ect ed th at

so m eo ne in si de th e res id en ce co ul d h av e b een in jure d o r de ceas ed . This fin di ng of

go od fai th is well su pp or te d by th e reco rd

, an d we pe rcei ve no cl ear erro r. Any po li ce

m is co nd uc t in th e in it ia l en try of th e ho m e was th us ta ke n in th e go od fai th be li ef th at

as si st an ce was req ui red , no t wi th th e p ur po se to in ve st ig at e th e Bra nd wein s.

The pa ss ag e of ti m e be twee n en try an d co ns en t, an d th e pr es en ce of in ter ve nin g
ci rcu m st an ces , al so in di cat e th at Deb ra’s co n s e n t w as no t th e pr od uc t of po li ce

m is co nd uc t. At leas t an ho ur pa ss ed aft er th e of fic ers fir st en te red th e ho us e be fo re
Deb ra co ns en te d to th e se arch —s ig ni fic an tl y m or e th an th e fif te en m in ut es we

pr ev io us ly ha ve de em ed “ su ffi ci en t t o dem on st rat e an at te nu at io n of the il le ga li ty.”

Uni te d St at es v. W

hi se nt on , 76 5 F.3 d 93 8, 94 1- 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); se e Uni te d St at es

v. Bar nu m , 56 4 F.3 d 96 4, 97 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Acco rd in g to Deb ra, sh e sa t wit h he r
hu sb an d in th e li vi ng roo m for “ qu it e a whi le ,” or fif te en to twen ty m in ut es , b efo re Serg ean t J effr ie s an d Det ect iv e Mu rd ic k a sk ed he r ab ou t co ns en t.

Befo re Deb ra co ns en te d, Dete ct iv e Mu rd ic k in fo rm ed he r th at he su sp ect ed th e

fir e was cau se d by a m et ha m ph et am in e la b, an d cau ti on ed he r no t to to uc h th e gl as s jars co nt ai ni ng su sp ect ed res id ue of m et ha m ph et am in e. The of

fic ers to ld Deb ra th at

sh e was free to le av e or to rem ai n wit h he r hu sb an d in th e li vi ng ro om

. W he n Deb ra

in qu ire d why Serg ean t Je f f rie s wan te d he r co ns en t to se arch

, Je ffri es to ld he r th at

po li ce al read y

ha d fou nd so m e ev id en ce of d ru g m an uf act ur in g. Th es e in te rv en in g
ci rcu m st an ces pe rm it te d Deb ra “ op po rtu ni ti es

. . . t o pa us e an d refl ect

, to de cl in e

co ns en t” aft er de li be rat e co ns id erat io n i f s h e w i sh ed

. Gre er , 60 7 F.3 d at 56 4; se e

W hi se nt on , 76 5 F.3 d at 94 2. We th eref or e co nc lu de th at Deb ra’s co ns en t was an

-8

-in de pe nd en t act of free wil l th at pu rg ed an y ta in t ari si ng fro m wha t we ha ve as su m ed

,

bu t n ot de ci de d, was an un la wfu l en try of t he res id en ce.

* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

Thre e rel ev an t fact or s fo r de te rm in in g w h et he r co ns en t pu rg es th e ta in t of a

Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n in cl ud e: (1 ) th e pa ss ag e of t i m e be twee n th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t vi ol at io n an d th e vo l u n ta ry co ns en t; (2 ) th e ex is te nc e of in te rv en in g
ci rcu m st an ces ; an d (3 ) th e pu rp os e an d flag ran cy of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n.

See Uni te d St at es v. Barn um , 56 4 F.3 d 96 4, 97 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 00 9) (ci ti ng Bro wn v.

Ill in oi s, 42 2 U.S. 59 0, 60 3– 04 (1 97 5) ). I writ e se pa rat el y to ex pr es s m y co nc ern wit h

ho w th e co ur t co ns id ers th e fir st two fact or s. W it h res pe ct to th e fir st fact or , th e co ur t

no te s th at Deb ra Bran dwe in co ns en te d to th e se arch at le as t an ho ur aft er th e of fic ers

fir st en te red th e ho us e, an d th at sh e ha d be en si tt in g in th e li vi ng ro om fo r fif te en to

twen ty m in ut es be fo re an y of fic er as ke d he r ab ou t co ns en t to se arch

. S e e U n i t e d

St at es v. W hi se nt on , 76 5 F.3 d 93 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Bu t co un ti ng th e pa ss ag e of ti m e
be twee n th e pr es um ed un la wfu l en try an d th e vo lu nt ary co ns en t in th is way ig no res

th e fact th at th e of

fic ers ne ve r le ft th e h o u s e

. Bec au se th e of fic ers un la wfu ll y

rem ai ne d, th ei r pr es en ce was a “ co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n wit h no in te rv e n i n g t i m e
be twee n th e il le ga li ty an d co ns en t.” W hi se nt on , 76 5 F.3 d at 94 4 (Bye, J., di ss en ti ng ).

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n was st il l oc cu rri ng at th e ti m e th e of fic ers ob ta in ed

Deb ra Bran dwe in ’s co ns en t. As a res u l t

, th ere was ne ve r a br eak be twee n th e

of fic ers ’ un la wf

u l c o n d uc t an d th e vo lu nt ary co ns en t to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e

ta in t h ad be en pu rg ed

.

-9

-Si m il arl y , I qu es ti on whe th er an y in te rv en in g ci rcu m st an ces were pr es e n t.

Deb ra Bran dwe in was to l d t h a t s h e co ul d no t to uc h cert ai n it em s in he r ho m e, th at

ev id en ce of dr ug m an uf

act ur in g h a d al read y be en fo un d, an d th at of fic ers in te nd ed

to ob ta in a se arch warra nt

. Perh ap s th es e ci rcu m st an ces ga ve he r an op po rtu ni ty “ to

pa us e an d refl ect

, to de cl in e co ns en t.” See Uni te d St at es v. Greer

, 60 7 F.3 d 55 9, 56 4
(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Bu t it m ay ve ry well be th at th es e ci rcu m st an ces , oc cu rri ng as th ey
di d whi le th e of

fic ers rem ai ne d un la wfu l l y i n h er ho m e, si m pl y rei nf or ced he r fear

an d, th us , he r de ci si on to acq ui es ce to th e se arch

. W hi se nt on , 76 5 F.3 d at 94 4 (Bye,

J., di ss en ti ng ) (“ as ki ng fo r pe rm is si on to sm ok e in on e’s own ho m e is ev id en ce th e

pr ol on ge d un la wfu l in tru si on ha d a co erci ve effe c t o n [ t h e pe rs on who ul ti m at el y

ga ve co ns en t]”).

Bec au se th is cas e be ars su ch cl os e fact ua l si m il ari ty to W hi se nt on , I co nc ur in

th e jud gm en t of the co ur t. Had th es e is su es be en pr es en te d to us as a m at te r of fir st

i mp res si on , ho wev er, I wou ld vi ew th es e two fact or s as weig hi ng in fav o r o f t h e

co nc lu si on th at Deb ra Bran dwe in ’s co ns en t was no t “ an in de pe nd en t act of free wil l”

su ffi ci en t “ to pu rg e th e pr im ary ta in t of th e [il le ga l] en try” in to th e Bran dwe in ho m e.

W hi se nt on , 76 5 F.3 d at 94 1 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

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

-1 0-