Court Opinion

ID: 9908347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 16:01:07.243337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:07.211421
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1298
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                             Darren James Ackerman

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: October 18, 2023
                             Filed: December 8, 2023
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

       The district court 1 denied Darren J. Ackerman’s motion to suppress evidence
of firearms discovered in his basement. Reserving the right to appeal, he pled guilty

      1
        The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mark A.
Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
to Possession of Firearms by a Prohibited Person under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).
Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, this court affirms.

       Police learned that Ackerman tried to “choke out” his girlfriend, was probably
on drugs, and possibly holding their infant daughter hostage at his home. Entering
the home, officers found Ackerman standing at the bottom of the stairs to the
basement, holding his daughter. Ordered at gunpoint to come up the stairs, he
complied. Police searched and handcuffed him. Two officers entered the basement
to perform a protective sweep. They saw the butt of a gun sticking out of the open
door to a “canning room,” which was visible from the bottom of the stairs. Looking
into the room, they saw two firearms. Officers also found drug paraphernalia in an
open room at the base of the staircase. Based partly on the firearms (and partly on
drugs found on Ackerman’s person), the officers obtained a search warrant. With it,
they discovered more firearms.

       Ackerman argues that the search was not a valid protective sweep because the
searched rooms did not adjoin the place of his arrest. “‘In an appeal from a district
court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews factual findings
for clear error, and questions of constitutional law de novo.’” United States v.
Gordon, 741 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2013), quoting United States v. Hollins, 685
F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2012). “‘We review the district court’s conclusion that a
protective sweep was justified de novo.’” United States v. Alatorre, 863 F.3d 810,
813 (8th Cir. 2017), quoting United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir.
2005).

      Under the “protective sweep” exception to the Fourth Amendment, officers
may conduct “a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and
conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” United States v. Waters,
883 F.3d 1022, 1026 (8th Cir. 2018), quoting Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327
(1990). “In Buie the Supreme Court established a two-prong test for determining
whether a protective sweep incident to an arrest was constitutionally permissible.”
Waldner, 425 F.3d at 517. “[A]s an incident to the arrest the officers could, as a
                                         -2-
precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in
closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an
attack could be immediately launched.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 334. Officers may also
search areas where “articulable facts which, taken together with the rational
inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing
that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest
scene.” Id.

        In the Buie case, the Supreme Court denied suppressing evidence, due to the
protective sweep exception. Id. at 337. Officers there discovered evidence while
searching a basement after the defendant surrendered at the bottom of the basement
stairs, “emerged from the basement,” and was searched and handcuffed on the first
floor. Id. at 328. The facts here are nearly identical. The district court found that
Ackerman surrendered and was arrested at the bottom of the basement stairs, walked
up the stairs, and was searched and handcuffed at the top of the stairs. The officers
then entered the basement, discovering firearms in a room immediately adjoining
the area at the bottom of the stairs. These findings are not clearly erroneous.

       The district court properly concluded that the arrest occurred at the bottom of
the stairs, where Ackerman first submitted to their authority. See United States v.
Flores-Lagonas, 993 F.3d 550, 559 (8th Cir. 2021) (“A Fourth Amendment seizure
occurs ‘when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in
some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.’”), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,
19 n.16 (1968); California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991) (an arrest occurs
where there is “either physical force … or, where that is absent, submission to the
assertion of authority.”). The room with the firearms immediately adjoined the area
at the bottom of the stairs. The protective sweep complied with the Fourth
Amendment.

                                         -3-
                        *******

The judgment is affirmed.
                ______________________________

                            -4-