Opinion ID: 3166089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Harris’s Probationary Sentence

Text: In 2006, Harris pled guilty to attempted burglary in Georgia state court. He received a two-year custodial sentence followed by eight years’ probation. One of the conditions of Harris’s probation was that he “[s]hall, at the request of Probation Supervisor, consent to a search, without necessity or benefit of a search warrant, of person, residence, or motor vehicle under [his] control by Probation Supervisor or any Law Enforcement Officer for detection of alcohol or controlled substances.” B. Indictment for Firearms Offense and Motion to Suppress Harris was serving his probationary sentence on April 9, 2012, when a probation officer and Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) agents searched his residence. The law enforcement officials discovered 12 firearms. In March 2014, the government indicted Harris for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. 1 Harris filed a motion to suppress his statements and the firearms discovered at his residence. Harris claimed that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights for multiple reasons, including that: (1) there was no reasonable suspicion to 1 The government waited two years to indict Harris because Harris was imprisoned for a probation violation until March 2014 as a result of the events described in this opinion. 2 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 3 of 18 search his residence for controlled substances; (2) the terms of his probation allowed searches for the detection of controlled substances, not firearms, and the law enforcement officials did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that there were controlled substances within a gun safe; and (3) a GBI agent made statements that contradicted his Miranda 2 warnings, and it was only after this point that he divulged the gun safe’s combination and opened it. C. Evidence Related to April 9, 2012 Search Harris submitted an affidavit in support of his motion. The district court held a suppression hearing at which two law enforcement agents testified. According to the evidence adduced at the hearing and from the affidavit, 3 agents began investigating Harris when the post office contacted the GBI in reference to a package that broke during transportation. The package contained a hydroponic light that could be used to grow marijuana. An undamaged second package bearing the same address contained a liquid substance, which Harris later asserted was plant nutrients. GBI agents matched the address on the packages to the residence in which Harris was living. They discovered through a records search that Harris was on 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). 3 We include material from Harris’s affidavit in order to provide a complete account of the search. We do not rely on any statements from the affidavit, that were not corroborated during the suppression hearing, in our analysis. The government objected to the affidavit being considered because it did not have the opportunity to cross-examine Harris. The district court never addressed the objection and the government does not raise the objection again on appeal. 3 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 4 of 18 probation and had prior charges for drug violations, including possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The agents confirmed with Harris’s supervising probation officer that Harris had a “search clause” in his conditions of supervision. On April 9, 2012, Agent Stripling Luke and other GBI agents observed a postal employee deliver the packages to Harris’s residence and hand the packages to Harris. The residence belonged to Harris’s father, and Harris was living in the pool house. After Harris took possession of the packages, he placed the plant nutrients in a greenhouse on the property and returned to the pool house. When his dog began barking, he walked back to the front of the property where Agent Luke, a probation officer, and approximately three other agents were standing in the driveway. The probation officer asked why Harris had failed to report to his probation officer. Harris replied that he was only one day late and was to be placed on “nonreporting status.” A GBI agent then asked Harris what use he had for a hydroponic light, and Harris responded that he was building his stepmother a hydroponic system in the greenhouse. The agent asked if he could see the greenhouse, and the probation officer interjected to say that, due to Harris’s probationary status, the agents had a right to search the residence. After searching the greenhouse, the agents told Harris that they were going to search the rest of the property and asked 4 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 5 of 18 Harris whether there was anything on the property they should know about. Harris admitted that there was a marijuana plant in the pool house and then accompanied the agents to the pool house. Harris had a marijuana plant with a fluorescent light over it, two ballasts, two light reflectors, nutrients, and rock wool hidden in a closet in the pool house. Luke described this closet setup as a “grow room.” One of the agents observed a gun safe in the pool house and asked Harris what was inside and whether he had the combination. Harris said he did not know what was inside, and only his father and brother knew the combination. The agents continued to press him about the contents of the safe until he stated that he was “pretty sure” there were guns inside. At some point, Agent Luke questioned Harris about how the marijuana grow equipment worked. Harris asked Agent Luke whether his statements were “off the record,” and Agent Luke stated, “Yes.” With this understanding, Harris “talked for some time.” In his affidavit, Harris indicated that he would not have continued talking had he understood that the statements could be used against him in a federal prosecution. Agent Jeff Reed, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), arrived on the scene about an hour after the other law enforcement personnel. Agent Reed questioned Harris about the gun safe and the guns that were inside and repeatedly asked for the safe’s combination. According 5 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 6 of 18 to Harris, Agent Reed became belligerent and stated: “We’re not leaving here until we get into that safe,” and, “We are going to get into this safe if we have to cut the . . . door off!” At this point, Harris decided to provide the combination and open the safe. The agents found guns inside. The agents also found a gun in a dresser or set of drawers in the pool house. Harris stated that the agents did not find that gun until after they had opened the safe. The master report of the incident allegedly stated the same. However, both Agent Luke and Agent Reed testified that they discovered the gun before opening the safe. Throughout the search, the GBI agents maintained a recording device to capture Harris’s statements. Agent Luke, however, deactivated the device for a period of time when he was processing evidence rather than speaking to Harris. He turned it back on when he needed to consult with Harris again. The government played the recording for the district court. The tape confirmed that the agents questioned Harris about his failure to report to probation. Harris admitted that he had failed to report, citing a number of reasons, and admitted that he had a marijuana plant. A female agent also read Harris his Miranda rights. Later, Agent Luke told Harris that their conversation was off the record. The recording contained no mention of the handgun that was found in the drawer. The tape established that Agent Reed told Harris twice that he did not 6 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 7 of 18 want to cut the safe open and once that he was planning to cut it open if he could not get the combination. The agents also took photographs of what they discovered at the scene. The photograph of the firearm from Harris’s drawer was timestamped 2:02 p.m., and the photograph of the items in the safe was timestamped 2:50 p.m. Agent Luke testified that (1) items related to the hydroponic manufacture of marijuana could have fit in the safe; (2) he was not sure what was in the safe; and (3) he felt that the search terms in Harris’s conditions of probation allowed him to access the safe. In the past, he had found drugs, currency, and ledgers in similar safes and believed that Harris could have had anything inside. No one repeated the Miranda rights to Harris after the off-the-record comments. Agent Reed testified that, when he arrived at Harris’s home, agents briefed him on the discovery of the hydroponic system and showed him the marijuana grow area in Harris’s closet. The agents also pointed out a revolver that they had discovered and placed on a table in the pool house. Agent Reed began questioning Harris and, at some point, Harris indicated that he had placed guns in the safe. This prompted Reed to ask Harris directly for the combination to the safe. Harris eventually opened the safe and gave the agents the combination. Agent Reed did not advise Harris of his Miranda rights. 7 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 8 of 18 Agent Reed further testified that he believed that he would have had the authority to cut the safe open if Harris had not unlocked it and he intended to do so. In Reed’s experience, such safes could contain drugs, ledgers, “growing books,” guns, or “anything of that nature.” Having already found marijuana and one firearm, Reed believed there was reason to suspect that there was additional contraband in the safe. D. District Court’s Ruling on Motion to Suppress The district court granted Harris’s motion to suppress in part and denied it in part. The court concluded that all of Harris’s statements, made after the time that Agent Luke agreed to talk off the record, had to be suppressed. The court reasoned that Agent Luke’s comments contradicted the Miranda warnings such that Harris’s statements were involuntary. There is no challenge to this ruling on appeal. As to the firearms, the court resolved the factual dispute concerning the discovery of the revolver by finding that the agents discovered the gun before any unlawful interrogation and before Agent Reed arrived at the residence and convinced Harris to open the safe. Furthermore, even though the safe was opened after the unlawful interrogation, the court stated that the firearms contained in the safe were admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine, as the agents would have, and lawfully could have, broken open the safe, had Harris not opened it. The district court also noted that the fruits of the search were lawful because the law 8 Case: 15-12098 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 9 of 18 enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to search Harris’s residence for controlled substances. E. Guilty Plea, Sentence, and Appeal After he was unable to exclude the firearms from evidence, Harris pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, pursuant to a written plea agreement. Harris reserved his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. The district court then sentenced Harris to serve a 26-month prison term. Harris appealed. He claims that the search of his residence was unconstitutional because (1) the agents lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the search and circumvented the Fourth Amendment, and (2) the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule was inapplicable.