Opinion ID: 222695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Voluntariness Determination

Text: While the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless searches, law enforcement may conduct such a search if they obtain a resident's voluntary consent. United States v. Kelley, 594 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir.2010). The government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent. United States v. Willie, 462 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir.2006). In determining whether consent is voluntary, courts examine the totality of the circumstances, including relevant factors such as (1) the individual's age and mental ability; (2) whether the individual was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs; (3) whether the individual was informed of [her] Miranda rights; and (4) whether the individual was aware, through prior experience, of the protections that the legal system provides for suspected criminals. It is also important to consider the environment in which an individual's consent is obtained, including (1) the length of the detention; (2) whether the police used threats, physical intimidation, or punishment to extract consent; (3) whether the police made promises or misrepresentations; (4) whether the individual was in custody or under arrest when consent was given; (5) whether the consent was given in public or in a secluded location; and (6) whether the individual stood by silently or objected to the search. United States v. Golinveaux, 611 F.3d 956, 959 (8th Cir.2010) (citation omitted). The government contends the district court erred in its analysis of these factors by relying on irrelevant factors, failing to consider proper factors, and improperly weighing relevant factors.
First, the government argues the court placed great weight on the five-and-a-half-hour delay between the time the officers became aware of the Quinteros's check-in at the hotel and the time the officers commenced the knock-and-talk at 10:30 p.m. The government contends the delay was irrelevant and no evidence established the officers intentionally delayed their investigation to confront the Quinteros at night. We conclude the court properly considered the time of the search in determining whether Michelle's consent was voluntary. First, our case law suggests the factors enumerated under the totality of the circumstances inquiry are non-exhaustive. See, e.g., United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir.1990) (noting the totality of the circumstances analysis for a custody determination is decidedly non-exhaustive); see also United States v. Romero, 743 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1303 (D.N.M. 2010) (The Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have developed a non-exhaustive list of factors that courts should consider when trying to determine whether a defendant's consent was voluntarily given.). Accordingly, it was not improper for the court to consider the fact the Quinteros were rousted out of bed at 10:30 p.m. by a number of officers and security personnel, as well as the officers' unexplained delay in executing the knock-and-talk. Moreover, regardless of whether the officers intentionally delayed their investigation to effectuate a nighttime search, our precedent clearly recognizes the time of the day during which a search takes place is relevant in the analysis. See United States v. Barnum, 564 F.3d 964, 971 (8th Cir.2009) (Barnum was situated behind his rental vehicle on the side of the road in broad daylight when he gave the consent, and he was not in police custody.); United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641, 655 (8th Cir.2008) (considering the fact the knock-and-talk at a motel room occurred during mid-day in analyzing whether the officers' conduct was coercive); United States v. Smith, 260 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir.2001) (noting the search took place during daylight in a public place, which weighed in favor of the government in the voluntariness determination). The government bears the burden of demonstrating voluntariness, by which it must show that a reasonable person would have believed that the subject of a search gave consent that was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice, and that the subject comprehended the choice that he or she was making. United States v. Sanders, 424 F.3d 768, 773 (8th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As part of determining whether Michelle's consent was free and unconstrained, the court was tasked with examining the environment in which the consent took place. See United States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir.1996) (In viewing the totality of the circumstances, it is appropriate to consider . . . the conditions under which the consent to search was given (such as . . . the duration, location, and time of the encounter).). Thus, the fact the officers inexplicably delayed their investigation, culminating in a nighttime knock-and-talk designed to consummate in a full-scale search, was relevant to the court's determination. In particular, the officers' rousting of the Quinteros from bed at night helped create a more coercive atmosphere, and thus the court did not err in considering this fact in its analysis.
Second, the government argues the court misapplied the law by not addressing four factors which weighed in favor of voluntariness: (1) the short length of time of the encounter; (2) the fact Michelle was not in custody when she gave consent; (3) the fact her initial consent was given in a public place; and (4) the fact she was not passively silent during the search, but objected to it. We disagree. As an initial matter, the government's argument suggests a mechanical analysis of the factors is required, which has been expressly rejected by this court on numerous occasions. See United States v. Comstock, 531 F.3d 667, 677 (8th Cir.2008) (Though these factors are valuable and guide our analysis, we do not employ them mechanically.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Willie, 462 F.3d at 896 (No one factor is dispositive; they are merely tools for analyzing the totality of all the circumstances.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, we reject the government's implication as to the court not being cognizant of these factors in its analysis. For instance, the court's order confirms it was intimately aware of the timing of the encounter, as it discussed at length the timing between the hotel's notification to Weber at 4:23 p.m. of the Quinteros's return to the hotel and the officers' arrival on the scene at 9:45 p.m. The court detailed the K-9 search at 10:26 p.m. outside the first room associated with the Quinteros, the 10:33 p.m. search outside the second room, and the specific timing associated with the encounter. See, e.g., Suppression Order at 4 (After four to five minutes of directing Michelle to get dressed, Michelle came to the door). Indeed, at the hearing, the court viewed the hotel surveillance footage, and it listened to the recording of the encounter in its entirety. After a careful review of the record, we reject any notion the court was not aware of the factors it was required to consider. Next, the government argues the court misapplied the law by giving insufficient weight to the defendant-specific factors, such as Michelle's age, intelligence, and education; whether she was intoxicated at the time; whether she was read her Miranda rights; and whether she had a criminal history and was aware of her legal protections. In its order, the court stated: Michelle was not called to testify. Little information is known about her age or mental ability. Agent Weber testified, however, that the Quinteros were known to law enforcement before the circumstances giving rise to this case. The Court is not concerned that Michelle lacked the ability to consent or did not understand the process. Instead, the Court is concerned about the timing of the investigation and the coercive manner in which the officers went about obtaining consent. Id. at 10. The government contends these factors weighed in its favor, and the court's concession to them cannot be overstated in the analysis. We are not persuaded by the government's argument. As the government recognizes, the court expressly acknowledged the defendant-specific factors in its analysis. Rather, the government essentially disagrees with the outcome of the court's weighing of the factors. The court explicitly stated it was concerned the other relevant factors showed the officers obtained Michelle's consent in a coercive manner, and these coercive factors outweighed the other factors under the circumstances. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 598 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir.2010) (In determining voluntariness, the personal characteristics of the individual who supposedly consented and the environment in which the consent allegedly occurred are relevant.) (emphasis added). Under the totality of the circumstances, we find no error in the court's determination. The problem with the government's argument is exemplified by its analogy to United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694, 709 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc), where this court held a defendant voluntarily consented to a search, in part, because the defendant-specific factors favored a finding of voluntariness. In Va Lerie, the defendant testified he consented to the search, the officer displayed his badge and identified himself as law enforcement, and no officer threatened or coerced the defendant. Id. at 709-10. None of these numerous facts supporting a finding of voluntary consent, id. at 710, are present in this case; to the contrary, there were numerous facts demonstrating coercion on the part of the officers and fear on the part of Michelle. Within this context, the government's argument fails because the court concluded the coercive factors outweighed those supporting voluntariness under the totality of the circumstances, and, as stated above, we find no error in this conclusion.
Finally, the government argues the court misapplied the law by holding Michelle was coerced into consenting to the search because other reasons, such as the hidden methamphetamine, justified her fear, and the presence of six individuals three officers, two security guards, and one hotel managerwas insufficient to create a coercive environment. The government also asserts the court misapplied the law in holding the officers made misrepresentations which led to the involuntary consent because officer deception, standing alone, does not invalidate consent. Moreover, the government argues Michelle knew her consent to search would reach locations where the narcotics could be hidden. We disagree. The record supports the court's conclusion as to the coercive atmosphere, which, coupled with the officers' misrepresentations and Michelle's repeated expressions of fear, demonstrated her consent was involuntary. We find illustrative the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 204, 122 S.Ct. 2105, 153 L.Ed.2d 242 (2002), where the Court concluded an encounter was not coercive because [t]here was no application of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, no threat, no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice. Unlike in Drayton, there were copious facts here supporting coercion. Six individuals, including three officers and two security guards, conducted a late-night knock-and-talk after an inexplicable delay, rousting the Quinteros from sleep. Weber misrepresented his identity at the door, commanded Michelle to get dressed and come to the door multiple times, and took several minutes to repeatedly badger her for consent to search the room in the face of her hesitation, as well as her repeated statements to the effect that the officers were scaring the shit out of [her]. Weber also falsely told Michelle he only wanted to take a quick peek around, when he endeavored to conduct a full-scale search of the room and the Quinteros's belongings. To this end, Weber admitted his forceful tactics were the only way he could search the room because he had no probable cause or exigent circumstances. Under these circumstances, the court did not err in concluding Michelle's consent was the product of duress and coercion, rather than of her own free will. See United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir.2006) (Consent is voluntary if it was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker, rather than the product of duress and coercion, express or implied.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We are unpersuaded by the government's attempts to diminish the effect of the officers' coercion, such as its assertion as to Michelle's fear being the product of her own illegal activity, rather than the officers' threatening conduct. This argument runs counter to our precedent, which holds [t]he defendant's actual subjective state of mind at the time that he allegedly gave his consent is not determinative; our focus, rather, is on how a reasonable person could have perceived his state of mind at that time. United States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985, 995 (8th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) ([T]he `reasonable person' test presupposes an innocent person.). Accordingly, in determining whether a reasonable innocent person's consent was involuntary, [t]he internal psychological pressure associated with a suspect's knowledge of his or her own guilt, or fears that evidence of such guilt has been discovered by police, have no bearing on this question. United States v. Torres-Castro, 374 F.Supp.2d 994, 1028 (D.N.M.2005). We therefore reject the government's efforts to supplant Michelle's fear from the officers' conduct with the alleged fear of her own criminal activity. In sum, [t]he ultimate question is whether the individual's will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, such that his consent to search must have been involuntary. United States v. Vinton, 631 F.3d 476, 482 (8th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court held, after considering all the evidence, the government failed to show Michelle voluntarily consented to a search. We find no clear error in the court's conclusion as to the involuntariness of Michelle's consent to search.