United States v. Alex Coleman
909 F.3d 925
8th Cir.2018Background
- On Aug. 8, 2014, Ashlee Phillips (co-occupant) called 911 alleging Coleman had struck her and was armed; Officer Crowder arrived and, according to Crowder, Phillips consented and escorted him into the residence.
- Crowder confronted and arrested Coleman after a struggle; officers found narcotics, cash, small baggies, and a handgun near where Coleman was detained.
- Sgt. Edwards performed a cursory protective sweep, opened a locked bedroom with Coleman’s key (given by Phillips), observed marijuana in plain view, and left; Detective Neely later obtained a warrant to search the premises.
- The warrant (signed ~11:19 p.m.) authorized search of the premises and curtilage; execution the next day uncovered large quantities of multiple controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, cell phones, Coleman’s ID, firearms, and papers in Coleman’s name; a drug dog alerted on a car in the driveway, leading to a vehicle search that uncovered more cocaine and a firearm.
- Coleman moved to suppress all evidence seized after Crowder’s entry and challenged sufficiency of the evidence; the district court denied suppression and a jury convicted Coleman on multiple drug counts, being a felon in possession, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and conspiracy; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coleman) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of Crowder’s warrantless entry | Phillips did not consent to Crowder entering; entry unlawful | Phillips had common authority and consented; district court credited Crowder’s testimony | Entry valid; court credited officer’s testimony over Phillips’ recantation |
| Protective sweep of locked bedroom | No reasonable basis to believe area harbored a dangerous person after Coleman was removed | Officers reasonably suspected danger given proximity, firearms found, others present, and narcotics investigation | Sweep justified under Buie; in any event, bedroom evidence would have been discovered via warrant |
| Particularity of warrant / overbroad descriptions | Warrant lacked particularity (e.g., cell phones not listed); failed to identify Coleman | Warrant valid for instrumentalities of drug trafficking; cell phones fall within described categories; warrants need not name defendant | Warrant severable; seizure of instrumentalities (cell phones) upheld |
| Vehicle sniff/search and curtilage issues | Dog sniff/search of vehicle in curtilage unlawful (Jardines/Collins) | Warrant authorized search of premises and curtilage; officers were lawfully inside executing warrant and could sniff/search vehicle | Sniff/search upheld: warrant for premises and curtilage authorized canine sniff or search of vehicle in curtilage |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amratiel, 622 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for suppression factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (third-party consent to enter when party has common authority)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (co-tenant objection at the threshold can defeat consent in limited circumstances)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep doctrine—sweep for persons posing danger)
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (canine sniff at home’s curtilage implicates Fourth Amendment)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (automobile exception does not permit warrantless entry into curtilage absent warrant)
- United States v. Blaylock, 535 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (warrant need not name particular defendant; instrumentalities of crime included)
- United States v. Timley, 443 F.3d 615 (8th Cir. 2006) (severability of partially invalid warrants)