Court Opinion

ID: 9843049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:25:19.191114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:27.007586
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting with respect to the reversal of Ackerson’s conviction and concurring with respect to the result in Tobin’s conviction based on his lack of standing as found in the panel opinion, in which COX, Circuit Judge, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge, join:
The issues in this case have changed their complexion considerably since the district court ruled upon the motions to suppress filed by Tobin and Ackerson. That court held that neither Tobin nor Ackerson had standing to urge a Fourth Amendment right; alternately, if standing existed, the result would be the same since the facts supported a Terry stop. The court found that the facts supported a reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot and that this suspicion supported the officers’ entry into the house.
The panel agreed with the district court that Tobin had no standing, but reversed with respect to Ackerson’s standing since he owned and lived in the house the officers entered. Without discussing whether the officers had reasonable suspicion, the panel concluded that the officers’ entry into the house was coerced and that Ackerson had not voluntarily consented to their entry. The district court’s ruling denying Ackerson’s motion to suppress was reversed.
The majority en banc opinion does not discuss standing. The majority decides that the entry into the house comported with Fourth Amendment law and that the ensuing search of the house by the officers was lawful. The district court’s ruling not to suppress the evidence is affirmed. The majority holds that the activities of the defendants viewed by the officers through their binoculars supported a conclusion by the officers of probable cause to support a search of the house. The majority further reasons that there were exigent circumstances that excused the officers from the requirement that a warrant be obtained. The majority then assumes arguendo that there was no probable cause and reasons alternatively that the entry into the house by the officers was consensual.
Because I believe under the facts of this case there were no exigent circumstances except those created by the officers themselves, and because I believe the panel opinion was correct in holding that the entry by the officers was coerced, I respectfully dissent.
I. EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Assuming arguendo that probable cause existed, that alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless search; “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” 1
The exigent circumstance exception invoked by the majority is that “[djestruction or removal of some portion of the narcotics was ... a possibility.”2 The majority concedes that no evidence was introduced to show that the contraband was in danger of being destroyed, and indeed one agent testified that he did not believe that the officers had been observed during their surveillance.3 Instead, the majority holds that the “imminent destruction” exception to the warrant requirement was triggered because the appellants acted clandestinely in transferring the packages of cocaine from the car to the garage. This holding contradicts both the facts of this case and previous case law.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly required the suppression of evidence seized without a warrant when there was no indication that the evidence was about to be destroyed.4 The Court confronted very *1515similar circumstances to those at issue in Johnson v. United States.5 There, police officers were informed that unknown persons were smoking opium in a Seattle hotel. The officers entered a hallway and
recognized at once a strong odor of burning opium which to them was distinctive and unmistakable. The odor led to Room 1. The officers did not know who was occupying that room. They knocked and a voice inside asked who was there. “Lieutenant Belland,” was the reply. There was a slight delay, some “shuffling or noise” in the room and then the defendant opened the door. The officer said, “I want to talk to you a little bit.” She then, as he describes it, “stepped back acquiescently and admitted us.” He said, “I want to talk to you about the opium smell in the room here.” She denied that there was such a smell. Then he said, “I want you to consider yourself under arrest because we are going to search the room.” 6
From this, the Court held that no consent to search was given, and that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search:
No reason is offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present the evidence to a magistrate. These are never very convincing reasons and, in these circumstances, certainly are not enough to bypass the constitutional requirement. No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of permanent premises, .not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction, except perhaps the fumes which we suppose in time will disappear. But they were not capable at any time of being reduced to possession for presentation to court.7
The majority circularly opines that Johnson is inapposite because, in that case, no exigent circumstances were present.8 Yet here, as in Johnson, no reason beyond inconvenience has been proffered as to why a search warrant was not obtained. As in Johnson, no suspect was fleeing, likely to take flight, or even aware that there was any reason to flee. As in Johnson, the officers meant to search a permanent place of residence, not an automobile. And, as in Johnson, the evidence — four large, tubular bags of cocaine — was not threatened with removal or destruction. If appellants started to move the cocaine, the officers easily could have detected this through their surveillance and stopped the relocation. By all accounts, the appellants believed they had successfully secreted their cache in the garage, and there was no evidence that they were about to dispose precipitously of •the goods. Johnson and the instant case are indistinguishable. The majority would hold, were it to decide Johnson today, that *1516the defendant was acting furtively by keeping her hotel room door shut.
As the majority discusses, prior decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court hold that exigent circumstances may arise when evidence is likely to be destroyed. Regardless of the ease of destructibility of evidence, if there is no indication that evidence is in danger of being lost, there is no reason for the police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The most delicate scintilla of evidence will last indefinitely if no one has an incentive to destroy it. In the circumstances of this case, the appellants would have been most loathe to destroy their extremely valuable store of cocaine and money absent some evidence known to them of police surveillance.
Where suspects are unaware of police surveillance, the majority correctly notes that exigent circumstances do not usually exist.9 For example, in United States v. Torres,10 the police searched a house, the entrance of which was strewn with marijuana leavings; a van parked nearby contained bales of marijuana. The court found no exigent circumstances, however, because
[t]he presence of contraband without more does not give rise to exigent circumstances. It is improbable that the appellants could have concealed or destroyed the 200 pounds of marijuana found in the house before the agents moved in. Had appellants attempted such a course of action exigent circumstances would have been presented. The agents, however, had no reason to speculate that the evidence was being destroyed or that it was even subject to that risk.11
The logical corollary of the notion that exigent circumstances do not exist where suspects are unaware of surveillance is that such circumstances do not exist where the police purposefully make suspects aware of surveillance. Clearly, the police involved in this case controlled the time at which the approach to the house took place, thus creating the exigent circumstances for their search.12
In evaluating the creation of exigent circumstances by police, courts in the past have looked to whether there was an opportunity to obtain a search warrant. In United States v. Scheffer,13 this court wrote that “we have carefully reviewed the record and there is simply no plausible explanation as to why customs officials failed to go before a magistrate and obtain a search warrant.”14 As the majority notes, the Scheffer court found that police creation of exigent circumstances cannot excuse the failure to obtain a warrant. In United States v. Munoz-Guerra,15 this court’s twin circuit held that incriminating evidence must be suppressed when police, having received a tip that an armed drug dealer lived in a certain condominium, created exigent circumstances by approaching a door of the residence. The Fifth Circuit wrote,
In the instant case, it was possible to secure the condominium covertly from the outside. There was no basis, on these facts, for believing that resort to a magistrate would have created risks of a greater magnitude than those which are present in any case where the police have probable cause but delay entry pending receipt of a warrant. Had the police’s necessary efforts to secure the premises *1517been visible to the inhabitants or had there been reason to believe that someone within the condominium was in need of immediate succor, the government’s position would have merit.16
After the agents knocked on the door of Ackerson’s home, the agents had to search the house, with or without consent, or risk the possible destruction of the evidence. As the Munoz-Guerra court commented:
[The agents] knew when they knocked on the patio door that, once having made their presence known to Munoz-Guerra (and possibly to other occupants) it would be necessary to conduct a security search of the premises and to restrain the condominium’s inhabitants. Warrantless entry was thus a foregone conclusion the instant the agents revealed themselves to Munoz-Guerra at the patio door.17
The constitutional error in this case is magnified by the ease with which the agents could have complied with the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, assuming as the majority does that there was probable cause. The agents clearly had the option of unobtrusively securing the boundaries of the house while a warrant was procured — one of the agents testified that they were in possession of a two-way radio at the time of the search.18 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorize the issuance of telephonic warrants.19 If any of the suspects left prior to the issuance of the warrant, they could have been detained, and if they possessed any of the contraband, arrested.20 And if some of the suspects were arrested and others remained in the house, that would have provided the exigent circumstances necessary to trigger an exception to the warrant requirement.
The Supreme Court has held that “the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.” 21 Given that the suspects were completely unaware of the surveillance, the police have failed to carry their burden of showing the existence of such an urgent need.
II. NONCONSENSUAL ENTRY
Barring exigent circumstances, the police may conduct a warrantless search of a residence only when they have the freely given consent of the occupants. The Supreme Court in Bumper v. North Carolina 22 held that “[w]here there is coercion there cannot be consent,” 23 and “[w]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.” 24 The government’s burden should be particularly heavy since “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”25
Without consent, the agents would not have gained access to Ackerson’s house for any justifiable purpose and their entry would amount to a search.26 With reason*1518able suspicion, however, an officer may legally approach the house of a criminal suspect in order to make general inquiries.27 As long as the door is not opened in response to a threat or a command, the actions of the agents are considered part of an investigation and not a “search.” Thus, if the agents merely requested to speak with the occupants of the house and Ackerson opened the door in compliance, no search occurred at that point and any contraband detected by the agents’ olfactory access into Ackerson’s home was lawfully obtained under the “plain view” doctrine.28 The testimony of the agents involved in the instant search shows that the government has failed in its burden of demonstrating free and voluntary consent.
Three federal drug enforcement agents parked their vehicles in front of appellant Ackerson’s house. A fourth agent remained at some distance as a precautionary measure. Special Agent Glendell Wayne Roberts was designated to knock on the door of the residence and communicate with the occupants. Agent O’Neil accompanied him.29 Roberts was dressed in civilian clothes and had his hand on his holstered gun at this time.30 He stated:
I knocked on the door, and at first, no one would answer the door. I knocked, I continued to knock, on the door, and I stated — I announced I was the police, that I wanted to talk. I said, “I’m a police officer, I would like to talk to you, I need for you to come here.”
I said it in English and Spanish because we were working with a group of Colombians at the time.31
A third officer, Special Agent Steven K. Widener, was standing at the side of the house with his gun drawn, observing the proceedings.32 Widener’s testimony was as follows:
I could hear Agent Roberts shouting, “Police officers! We want to talk to you!” He said it several times, both in English and in Spanish.
5¡s Jfc Jk sf: sf:
For a short period of time, I would say about three maybe four minutes, there was absolutely no response. We knew someone was in the house because we’d just seen them go in. We’d never taken our visual off of the house.
I was preparing to go to my car radio and all [sic] for assistance, backup, a uniformed officer to come to assist us and, at that time, at the same moment, the door opened. I heard the door open. I heard Agent Roberts in a dialogue with someone at the front door.33
The agents in this case demanded entry under “color of authority.” Magic words of demand, such as “open-up,” are not necessary to constitute coercion. Rather, it is the actions of the officers and the context in which the words are spoken that dispose of the issue.34 Agent Roberts knocked and shouted for three to four minutes that he was a police officer and that he needed the appellants to come to the door. These actions do not, under the totality of the circumstances, amount to a request. The knocking was too long and too adamant to put Roberts in the category of any other public member asking for entry. Furthermore, Ackerson never verbally agreed to allow the agents to enter or to search the garage. Ackerson’s actions in this regard further support the idea that Ackerson was reacting to the agents rather than consenting.35 Because the agents demanded entry *1519under color of authority, they effected an unconstitutional search of Ackerson’s house when they gained olfactory access through the open door.
Under the “totality of the circumstances” test enunciated by Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,36 the search was far from consensual. The Court wrote, “In examining all the surrounding circumstances to determine if in fact the consent to search was coerced, account must be taken of subtly coercive police questions....”37 The Court also commented,
[T]he Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a consent not be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force. For, no matter how subtly the coercion was applied, the resulting “consent” would be no more than a pretext for the unjustified police intrusion against which the Fourth Amendment is directed.38
In this case, the “subtly coercive” circumstances included: the sudden appearance of three unmarked cars in the front of the house; one agent at the side of the house with his gun drawn; two armed agents standing at the front door; one agent rapping on the door for several minutes while shouting that the police were outside and that he.wanted to talk to the occupants; and then the same agent asking a number of accusatory questions. Of course under these circumstances Ackerson and Tobin did not verbally or physically bar the agents from coming in; the agents’ actions clearly implied that the full force of the government would be brought to bear upon the residents of the house if the door was not opened and the garage was not allowed to be searched. Taking all of the circumstances together, Roberts’ request was a command and Ackerson’s consent was coerced.
The majority fails adequately to distinguish Pekar v. United States.39 The facts in that case are very similar to those at issue:
Upon arrival outside defendant’s room, [the agents] knocked. Defendant answered, “who is there?” to which [Agent] Beale replied, “I want to talk to you regarding an official investigation of the F.B.I.” The defendant declined to answer, and the agents waited outside the door for 10 minutes, and again asked the same questions. The defendant asked how he would know that they were from the F.B.I., and the agents presented their identification through the louvers of the outer louvered door, there being double doors to defendant’s room. He then asked for more proof, and Beale gave him the telephone number of the F.B.I. office and told him to call, but to the knowledge of Beale, the defendant did not call. Then the defendant opened the door and the agents walked in displaying their credentials.40
The court then found that the defendant was coerced into admitting the agents, in that the door was opened only in the wake of the agents’ persistent efforts, and “[t]he agents merely told defendant when he asked what they wanted that they wanted to talk to him about an investigation not that they wanted to search his room.”41 As in Pekar, in the instant case the federal agents only gained entry through their persistence — repeatedly knocking on the door while shouting “Police Officers!” The doors in both cases were opened on misleading pretenses. In the instant case, the officers claimed that they wanted to talk to the residents about the unloading operation they had observed; they never indicated that what they really wanted to do was to search the house. Only a very active imagination could imply consent to search under these circumstances.
The majority distinguishes United States v. Edmondson,42 by noting that there, the officer's command was an imperative, while in this case, Agent Roberts testified that he requested to speak with the occu*1520pants. Edmondson’s facts are not so easily distinguishable:
After consulting an FBI legal advisor, the decision was made to knock on the door in an attempt to determine the identity of [a suspect]. The agents did not have a search nor arrest warrant. With weapons drawn, and with the vicinity in front of the apartment surrounded, the agents knocked on the door and saw Edmondson look out of the window. At this point, an agent yelled, “FBI. Open the door.” Edmondson opened the door, stepped back, and placed his hands upon his head.43
Our court found that Edmondson’s act in stepping out of the door, hands on his head, did not amount to an implied consent to be arrested. The court did not base this holding on the fact that the agent told Edmondson to open the door; rather, it held that “his consent to the entry into his residence [was] prompted by a show of official authority.”44
The majority likens the consent given in this case to that given in United States v. Willis.45 The circumstances of that case bear out the poverty of the analogy. In Willis, an officer telephoned a hotel room whose occupants were under investigation. “A man answered, and Park identified himself as a police officer, explaining he was next door and wanted to talk face to face. The person in Room 222 said ‘Okay.’ [The officers] then knocked, and a man ... opened the door.”46 The events in Willis were quite similar to those that are present when any private citizen requests permission to visit. And the defendant even gave an explicit verbal authorization for the police entry. But no normal neighbor (or constitutionally sanctioned police officer) bangs on the door for minutes, shouts his authority for demanding an audience, and then enters without receiving permission.
When the government does not first seek a warrant, it has the burden of showing that a free and voluntary consent was given to search a home. As related by the government’s own witnesses, the facts here show that no such consent was given. As the Supreme Court noted over a century ago,
[i]t may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed.47
It follows that this court should construe the Fourth Amendment to require the suppression of evidence derived from the coerced “consent” given in this case.
III. CONCLUSION
Respectfully I submit that the majority errs in holding that the officers’ warrant-less search of Ackerson’s house was justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. Further, the majority finds a consensual search under circumstances not heretofore condoned by any court. I would reverse the district court’s denial of Ackerson's motion to suppress.

. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (footnotes omitted).

. Majority opinion, at 1511.

. Majority opinion, at 1511 n. 3.

.See generally Minnesota v. Olson, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1690, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (approving Minnesota court’s finding of no exigent circumstances for warrantless entry to arrest); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390-95, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2412-14, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (no exigent circumstances to justify warrantless, *1515four-day search of residence of arrested suspect); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34-35, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 1972, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970) (arrest on steps in front of home did not create exigent circumstances for warrantless search); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 613-18, 81 S.Ct. 776, 778-80, 5 L.Ed.2d 828 (1961) (no exigent circumstances where officers searched rented-but-vacant property with permission of the owner); Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 497-500, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 1256-58, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) (no exigent circumstances where evidence of ongoing illegal distilling operation perceived from outside dwelling); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 52, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) (no exigent circumstances where police searched vacated hotel room; “There was no question of violence, no movable vehicle was involved, nor was there an arrest or imminent destruction, removal, or concealment of the property intended to be seized. In fact, the officers admit they could have easily prevented any such destruction or removal by merely guarding the door."); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 454-56, 69 S.Ct. 191, 192-93, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948) (no exigent circumstances where police had illegal gamblers under surveillance for two months); Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699, 709, 68 S.Ct. 1229, 1234, 92 L.Ed. 1663 (1948) (no exigent circumstances "where there was an abundant opportunity to obtain a search warrant and to proceed in an orderly, judicial way”); Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 5-6, 52 S.Ct. 466, 467, 76 L.Ed. 951 (1932) (no exigent circumstances where odor alerted police to presence of alcohol in garage).

. 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948).

. 333 U.S. at 12, 68 S.Ct. at 368.

. 333 U.S. at 15, 68 S.Ct. at 369.

. Majority opinion, at 1512 n. 6.

. Majority opinion, at 1511.

. 705 F.2d 1287 (11th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 718 F.2d 998 (11th Cir.1983).

. Id. at 1297.

. See United States v. Duchi, 906 F.2d 1278 (8th Cir.1990) (holding that evidence must be suppressed where the police created the exigency that the suspect would open a tampered package and immediately destroy the evidence); United States v. Thompson, 700 F.2d 944, 950 (5th Cir.1983) (government cannot create exigent circumstances) (citing cases); United States v. Scheffer, 463 F.2d 567, 575 (5th Cir.) (no exigent circumstances where "agents ... actually planned the cocaine transfer and could have controlled the time at which it took place.’’), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 984, 93 S.Ct. 324, 34 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972).

. 463 F.2d at 567.

. Id. at 575.

. 788 F.2d 295 (5th Cir.1986).

. Id. at 298; see also United States v. Curzi, 867 F.2d 36, 43 (1st Cir.1989) (invalidating warrant-less search involving creation of exigent circumstances analogous to those in Munoz-Guerra ).

. 788 F.2d at 298.

. Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 26.

. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c)(2); see also United States v. Cuaron, 700 F.2d 582, 588-89 (10th Cir.1983) (court must consider availability of telephonic warrant in exigent circumstances determination).

. See Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 809-10 & n. 7, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 3387-88 & n. 7, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (Burger, C.J., & O’Connor, J.) (commenting favorably on the practice of securing the boundaries of a home while obtaining a warrant to search).

. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2097, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984).

. 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968).

. 391 U.S. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1792.

. 391 U.S. at 548, 88 S.Ct. at 1792 (footnote omitted).

. United States v. United States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972).

. See United States v. Vicknair, 610 F.2d 372, 377 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 823, 101 S.Ct. 83, 66 L.Ed.2d 25 (1980).

. United States v. Knight, 451 F.2d 275, 278 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 965, 92 S.Ct. 1171, 31 L.Ed.2d 240 (1972); Davis v. United States, 327 F.2d 301, 303 (9th Cir.1964).

. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465-71, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037-41, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).

. Record on Appeal, vol. 6, at 11.

. Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 62.

. Id. at 27.

. Record on Appeal, vol. 6, at 32.

. Id. at 12.

. See United States v. Walters, 591 F.2d 1195, 1200 (5th Cir.) ("request” that appellant follow agent was no more than rhetorical question), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 945, 99 S.Ct. 2892, 61 L.Ed.2d 317 (1979).

. Cf. Johnson, 333 U.S. at 12, 68 S.Ct. at 368 (defendant "stepped back acquiescently”); Pekar v. United States, 315 F.2d 319, 325 (5th Cir.1963) (defendant seemed "confused”).

. 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).

. 412 U.S. at 229, 93 S.Ct. at 2049.

. 412 U.S. at 228, 93 S.Ct. at 2048.

. 315 F.2d at 319.

. Id. at 323.

. Id. at 325.

. 791 F.2d 1512 (11th Gir.1986).

. Id. at 1514.

. Id. at 1515.

. 759 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 849, 106 S.Ct. 144, 88 L.Ed.2d 119 (1985).

. Id. at 1493.

. Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635, 6 S.Ct. 524, 535, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886).