The Hon. Owen M. Panner, United States District Judge for the District of

1

Oregon, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1580EM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* On Appeal from the

v. * United States District Court

* for the Eastern District

* of Missouri.

John Lee Coffman, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 1998

Filed: July 1, 1998

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges,

and PANNER, District Judge. 1

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

John Coffman was charged with possession of ephedrine with the intent to

manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1). The District

Court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home. Coffman pleaded
The Hon. Thomas C. Mummert, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the

2

Eastern District of Missouri.

The Hon. Jean Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

3

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

guilty, reserving the right to challenge the District Court’s evidentiary ruling. He now

appeals that ruling. We affirm.

I.

The facts of the search and seizure are undisputed. In the course of tracking a

federal drug fugitive, the government learned that Coffman was an associate of the

fugitive. Two deputy United States Marshals went to Coffman’s residence to question

him about the fugitive. Coffman invited them in. One deputy observed an empty

handgun holster on a chair and asked Coffman if there were any weapons or other

persons in his home. He “replied there were none and invited the deputy to look for

himself.” Stipulation and Plea Agreement at 10. While one deputy talked with

Coffman, the other found “45,000 dosage units of ephedrine under the defendant’s bed

and a loaded Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver under the defendant’s pillow,”

id. (footnote omitted), which were then seized. 

Coffman was indicted for possession of ephedrine with the intent to manufacture

methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1), and possession of a firearm

by a person convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He moved to

suppress the drugs and gun, contending that they were unlawfully seized. On the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the District Court denied the motion. Coffman 2 3

then pleaded guilty to the drug-related count, reserving his right to appeal the denial of

the motion to suppress. The gun-related count was dismissed. He was sentenced to 120

months of imprisonment.
-3-

II.

We hold that the District Court’s determination that Coffman had voluntarily

consented to the search of his home was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Miller, 20 F.3d 926, 930 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 886 (1994). Coffman’s

invitation to “ ‘go ahead and look around,’ ” Mem. of Magistrate Judge at 2, indicated

consent. It was then the government’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the

evidence that this consent was voluntary. United States v. Miller, 20 F.3d at 930.

Here, neither “the characteristics of the accused” nor “the details of the environment,”

id., evidenced involuntariness. At the evidentiary hearing, the deputies testified that

Coffman had not been “under the influence of any drugs or alcohol,” and that they had

not made “any threats or promises to get him to give . . . permission to search the

residence.” Hr’g Tr. at 15. Nor does the Fourth Amendment require the deputies to

have informed Coffman of his right to withhold consent to the search. Ohio v.

Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 117 S.Ct. 417, 421 (1996). 

Coffman further argues that the search exceeded the scope of his consent.

However, there was no evidence that he told the deputies to limit their search to certain

areas, or for people only. He said, “ ‘[G]o ahead and look around. You won’t find a

thing.’ ” Mem. of Magistrate Judge at 2. We cannot agree that “the typical reasonable

person” would have understood Coffman to be permitting only a limited search. See

United States v. Martel-Martines, 988 F.2d 855, 858 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Florida v.

Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991)). It was not clear error for the Magistrate Judge to find,

and the District Court to agree, that Coffman’s “consent to search was broad and

unlimited.” Mem. of Magistrate Judge at 8.

We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court.
-4-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.