136 A.3d 1131
R.I.2016Background
- Late-night shooting killed Carl Cunningham Jr.; police quickly identified Tony Gonzalez as the suspect based on eyewitness Patricia Dalomba and phone/text evidence.
- Warwick detectives located Gonzalez at his mother Cira Gonzalez’s Providence apartment about seven hours after the homicide; police assembled with Providence officers and approached the apartment in a caravan early the next morning.
- Officers (several in uniform, some with weapons drawn; one carrying a tactical shield) knocked; Cira opened the door, made a nonverbal gesture toward the stairs, and officers entered within seconds and arrested Gonzalez upstairs.
- During or immediately after the arrest officers observed and later seized items from Gonzalez’s bedroom (gun case, magazine, receipt, clothing, boots, scarf); Gonzalez and his mother each signed written consents to search shortly after the arrest.
- Trial court denied suppression: it held the entry was justified by exigent circumstances and that both occupants had consented. Jury convicted Gonzalez of first-degree murder and firearms counts; he appealed. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of mother’s oral consent to entry | State: Cira allowed entry (gestured toward stairs); consent exception applies | Gonzalez: gesture was mere acquiescence under show of authority, not voluntary consent | Court: Entry was not voluntary consent; finding of consent was clearly erroneous |
| Validity of mother’s written consent to search | State: Cira later signed a written consent; voluntary | Gonzalez: Written consent was coerced/tainted by illegal entry and stressful circumstances | Court: Written consent was not proven voluntary by preponderance; clearly erroneous |
| Exigent-circumstances justification for warrantless home arrest | State: Ongoing manhunt, suspect believed armed; risk of destruction of evidence and danger to public/officers justified no warrant | Gonzalez: Police knew suspect’s identity hours earlier and could have sought an arrest warrant; no compelling immediate need existed for the entire period | Court: No genuine exigency shown to excuse seven‑hour delay; exigent‑circumstances exception did not apply |
| Validity/attenuation of defendant’s post‑arrest consent to search | State: Gonzalez consented in cruiser after cuffs removed; consent attenuated from arrest | Gonzalez: Consent was given immediately after illegal arrest/detention and thus presumptively invalid | Court: Consent was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry/arrest; taint not dissipated |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrantless entry into a home to make an arrest is presumptively unconstitutional absent exigent circumstances)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1984) (police bear heavy burden to show exigent circumstances for warrantless home entry)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (state must prove consent to search was freely and voluntarily given)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (mixed questions of law and fact on Fourth Amendment reviewed de novo)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent judged from totality of the circumstances)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruits doctrine: evidence obtained by exploitation of illegal police conduct is inadmissible unless taint is dissipated)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that constitutional error was harmless)