Opinion ID: 3000012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Rifle Was Recovered Pursuant to a Valid

Text: Consent to Search On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Grap, 403 2 At oral argument, counsel for the government stated that he had informed Parker’s trial counsel before the evidentiary hearing of the government’s intention not to use Parker’s statements during trial. As a result, neither party addressed whether there was probable cause for Parker’s arrest during the evidentiary hearing, and the district court did not rule on whether there was probable cause for Parker’s arrest. No. 05-3330 5 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 2005). Since the resolution of a motion to suppress is a fact-specific inquiry, we give deference to the credibility determinations of the district court, which had the opportunity to listen to testimony and observe the demeanor of witnesses at the suppression hearing. United States v. Marshall, 157 F.3d 477, 481 (7th Cir. 1998). With few exceptions, the Fourth Amendment generally requires that the issuance of a warrant supported by probable cause precede any search. Stanley v. Henson, 337 F.3d 961, 963 (7th Cir. 2003). Evidence that is seized during an unlawful search cannot be used against the victim of the unlawful search “unless the government can show that it was obtained as a result not of the illegality, but rather ‘by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” United States v. Swift, 220 F.3d 502 at 507 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963)). The Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and warrant requirements do not apply, however, where an authorized party voluntarily consents to a search. United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 1053, 1056 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1041 (7th Cir. 2000)). Because Johnson had authority to consent to the search of the house and consented to the search, we find that the district court properly denied Parker’s motion to suppress. At the suppression hearing, the district court heard testimony from Johnson, Officer Bortone, and Officer Karl Karch, an officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Task Force Project. After listening to their testimony and observing the witnesses’ demeanor, the district court concluded that Johnson was Parker’s cotenant at 629 East Haney and that she had consented to the search of the residence. 6 No. 05-3330 In his appeal, Parker does not challenge the district court’s finding that Johnson was Parker’s co-tenant or that she consented to the search; rather, he asserts that a cotenant’s consent cannot override the objection of a co-tenant who is either present or who is prevented from objecting due to an unlawful arrest. There is no evidence, however, that Parker was asked for his consent to search the house and that he refused or that he objected in any way to a search of the house. The absence of such evidence removes this case from the purview of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Georgia v. Randolph, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006). In Randolph, the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search with the permission of one co-tenant is unreasonable and invalid as to a co-tenant who is physically present at the scene and expressly refuses to consent to the search. 126 S.Ct. at 1519. Both the physical presence of the defendant and his express refusal to consent to the search distinguished Randolph from the Court’s decision in United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974), in which it held that a consent to a warrantless search by someone with common authority over the premises is valid as against an absent, non-consenting person with whom the authority is shared. The Court recognized in Randolph the fine line that it was drawing between its holding in that case and its holding in Matlock: “[I]f a potential defendant with self-interest in objecting is in fact at the door and objects, the co-tenant’s permission does not suffice for a reasonable search, whereas the potential objector, nearby but not invited to take part in the threshold colloquy, loses out.” Randolph, 126 S.Ct. at 1527. Here, as in Matlock, the police had taken Parker into custody and removed him from the premises before asking a co-tenant for her consent to search the property. At oral argument, Parker conceded the propriety of the police officers conducting a protective sweep of the house and No. 05-3330 7 taking Parker into custody, as the officers had arrived at the house in response to a report of a gunshot and needed to ensure the safety of anyone who was in the house. When they arrived at the house, the police officers discovered Parker leaving the house. Officer Bortone then took Parker into custody and placed him in the squad car.3 Again, as in Matlock, Parker was nearby but not invited to take part in the inquiry as to whether the officers could search the house. The officers asked Johnson for her consent, which she gave. The officers then conducted a search of the house pursuant to her consent. Parker does not argue or point to anything in the record that even hints at the possibility that the police had taken him into custody as a mechanism for coercing Johnson’s consent. So Johnson’s consent to the search was valid as against Parker. Moreover, Johnson’s consent to the search, the consent of a third party with authority over the premises being searched, was sufficiently attenuated from Parker’s arrest to render the search valid, whether Parker’s arrest was with or without probable cause. In Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-62, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), the Supreme Court identified three factors for determining whether the causal chain has been sufficiently attenuated to dissipate the taint of illegal conduct: (1) the 3 The precise circumstances surrounding Parker’s arrest are unclear from the record. We do not know the content of the telephone call to the police station that notified the officers of the armed disturbance; who made the call; which officers were first to arrive at Parker’s house; Parker’s exact location when the officers arrived at the house; whether the officers knocked on the door or the door was open; or how or when exactly Officer Bortone arrested Parker. In his motion to suppress, Parker stated as a fact on which his motion was based that, upon arriving at the house, officers observed Parker leave the residence. He was then handcuffed and placed in a squad car. 8 No. 05-3330 time elapsed between the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct. United States v. Green, 111 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir. 1997). “In the final analysis, however, the question is whether the evidence came from the ‘exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.’ ” Id. (quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. at 417). While the amount of time elapsing between Parker’s arrest and Johnson’s consent to the search is unclear, the record suggests that it was a matter of minutes. The time span between the claimed police misconduct and the search is not dispositive, however. Id. (citing United States v. Fazio, 914 F.2d 950, 958 (7th Cir. 1990)). We instead consider whether intervening circumstances were present. In this case, Johnson’s consent to the search constitutes an intervening circumstance that is not outweighed by official misconduct, even assuming that Parker’s custodial detention developed into an arrest without probable cause. Cf. United States v. Cellitti, 387 F.3d 618, 623 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding invalid a consent to search given by a defendant who was placed in handcuffs, driven to police station, locked in a holding cell, and chained to a bench for several hours after an arrest without probable cause because consent was tainted by illegal arrest). Johnson’s consent to the search was an act of free will independent of Parker’s arrest. See United States v. Pedroza, 269 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Cir. 2001). That Parker was not asked for his consent and did not have an opportunity to object to the search does not render invalid Johnson’s voluntary consent. The district court properly denied Parker’s motion to suppress. No. 05-3330 9