231 A.3d 398
D.C.2020Background:
- Victim Derrick Williams was shot and robbed; eyewitness Tillman identified the shooter by nickname “Face” and noted a second man in a red Helly Hansen jacket.
- U.S. Marshals executed an arrest warrant for Gregory Green at his home, arrested him, removed other occupants, and (without a search warrant) remained inside the residence.
- MPD Detective Travis Barton arrived ~an hour later, entered the home without a warrant to consult with the Marshals and look for Green’s cell phone, called Green’s number, located the phone with Green’s girlfriend, and seized it.
- Barton obtained a warrant the next day after removing the phone’s battery to record IMEI/serial numbers; the phone yielded call records, photos, and texts linking Green to the crime scene and timeline.
- Green moved to suppress the phone and its contents, arguing the entry, search, and seizure were warrantless and unconstitutional; the trial court denied suppression, the phone evidence was used at trial, and Green was convicted.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals held the prolonged interior presence and Barton’s warrantless entry/search were unreasonable; the phone was fruit of the unconstitutional intrusion, not sufficiently attenuated, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Green's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of warrantless entry/continued interior presence and seizure of the cell phone | Marshals’ and Barton’s continued presence and Barton’s entry/search were warrantless, exceeded any protective-sweep or arrest-related authority, and caused the seizure of the phone (fruit of illegality) | Marshals may remain inside to secure/impound the scene while obtaining a search warrant; Barton could join them, observe in plain view, call the phone to locate and seize it; exigency justified immediate seizure | Court: Interior occupation after arrest and Barton’s entry/search were unreasonable; seizure violated the Fourth Amendment; phone and data were tainted and should have been suppressed. |
| Applicability of arrest-warrant, protective-sweep (Buie), and exigent-circumstances exceptions | Arrest-warrant and Buie sweep authority ended once occupants were removed and protective sweep concluded; no exigency was shown to justify interior occupation | Government contends arrest-authority and securing the scene pending a warrant justified remaining inside and taking steps to prevent loss of evidence | Court: Arrest-warrant and Buie did not authorize lingering inside; no exigent circumstances were shown; police should have secured the premises from outside (McArthur distinguished Segura). |
| Attenuation/exclusion and harmless-error | Phone and contents are fruits of the illegal intrusion and should be excluded; their admission prejudiced the jury | Government argues attenuation or harmless error; later warrant and independent sources cure taint or error was harmless | Court: Temporal proximity, absence of intervening free-will act, and purposeful official intrusion support suppression; evidence not purged and admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry for arrest is narrowly limited)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (scope of search incident to arrest limited to immediate control area)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine is limited and cursory)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view seizure requires lawful presence)
- Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (balance test for temporary restrictions and permissibility of guarding premises from outside)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (discusses internal securing of premises and independent-source doctrine)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent-source doctrine limits suppression when warrant based on untainted information)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree principle)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation factors for excluding evidence)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area is a search)