Opinion ID: 43414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First Suppression Motion

Text: Prior to trial, Manning moved the district court to suppress the drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearm seized from his home during the execution of a search warrant, contending that the warrant was executed in an unreasonable manner. In that motion, Manning asserted that officers watched his apartment in preparation of serving an arrest and search warrant, saw him leave his apartment, and arrested him a short distance from his house. According to Manning, while officers detained him in the location of his arrest, another group of officers broke open his door to conduct the search of his apartment. He asserted that by the time the officers returned him to his apartment, the other officers had already found the drugs and firearm. Manning further argued that there were no exigent circumstances and that the officers did not have to break into his apartment. More specifically, Manning contended the officers could have returned him to his apartment and offered him the opportunity to unlock the door and inform officers of the location of the contraband, in order to avoid property damage and limit the scope of the officers’ search. The government’s account of the facts was materially different. According to the government, officers David Duncan and Gary Hunnings stopped Manning near his home, placed him under arrest, and returned him to his apartment. Upon 3 their return to Manning’s apartment, and while other officers were taking Manning out of the car, officers Duncan and Hunnings knocked loudly on Manning’s door and announced that they were from the Sheriff’s Office and were executing a search warrant. After receiving no response, officer Duncan asked Manning if there was anyone in the apartment, and Manning did not respond. Duncan was concerned that someone was in the apartment destroying evidence. Duncan thus determined that immediate entry was necessary, and forced open the door. According to the government, Manning was present at the apartment but did not inform officers that he had keys to unlock the door until after officers forced the door open. Upon entering the apartment, the officers did a protective sweep, during which Duncan saw a Nike shoe box containing crack. After the protective sweep, Duncan directed Manning to enter and sit in the apartment. Manning originally refused, but, after speaking with an officer whom he knew, complied with the officers’ instructions. Officers had Manning sit in a chair in his home and read Manning the search warrant, while other officers searched the home. Officers found more drugs and a firearm while Manning was in the apartment. The district court conducted a hearing, at which two officers testified consistent with the government’s factual account. In addition, a videotape of the 4 search showed Manning sitting in the apartment during the search and showed the discovery of the handgun and other drugs. Robert Baucham testified on Manning’s behalf regarding what he saw at the arrest scene. Baucham indicated that he saw a patrol car leave with a tow truck. Although Baucham did not see Manning in the patrol car, others told him that Manning was in the car. The district court stated that Baucham’s testimony suggested that Manning was not immediately returned to his apartment after his arrest; however, the district court discounted that suggestion because Baucham did not actually see Manning in the patrol car and, according to the testimony of the officers, a second patrol car was called to the arrest scene to oversee the impoundment of Manning’s vehicle. The other defense witness, George Simmons, testified that he lived in the apartment immediately below Manning’s apartment. Simmons heard loud noises coming from Manning’s apartment, as if the apartment were being torn apart. He looked out the window and saw a patrol car and several officers, but did not see Manning. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, Simmons saw Manning walk up to the apartment from the road and heard the officers threatening to drag Manning up the stairs if he did not walk. He saw Manning go up to the apartment and heard more noises coming from the apartment. However, Simmons acknowledged that he did 5 not keep a constant watch of the scene, but walked back and forth to his window to look outside. The district court found that Simmons’s testimony was generally consistent with the officers’ testimony. Although Simmons did not see Manning initially, it was unclear whether Manning was in Simmons’s line of view from the window, and it was unclear whether Manning was placed back in the patrol car during the protective sweep. The district court thus found that: (1) Manning was present at the apartment at the time the search began and failed to respond to the officers when they asked if anyone was inside the apartment; (2) the officers were concerned that someone was in Manning’s apartment destroying evidence; (3) Manning did nothing to allay those fears, and it did not appear that Manning would respond positively to a request to open the door immediately; and (4) after the protective sweep, Manning was led into the apartment so he could be present during the search. Based on these findings, the district court concluded that the officers’ actions in executing the search warrant were reasonable and valid under the circumstances. Accordingly, the district court denied Manning’s motion to suppress.