United States v. Brian Micko Yeary
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1132
11th Cir.2014Background
- Brian Yeary, a convicted felon, was indicted federally for multiple drug- and firearms-related offenses and sentenced to lengthy terms after a jury trial. He appealed, primarily contesting denial of suppression motions for three warrantless searches.
- June 16, 2008 (Stuart house): Deputies with an arrest warrant approached; Yeary was present, a handgun was seen in plain view, Yeary was arrested, officers performed a protective sweep and observed drug evidence in plain view that led to a warrant and seizure.
- June 24, 2009 (Lake Worth house): Yeary was on state-ordered in-house arrest under an ACU agreement that he signed, which expressly allowed 24/7 warrantless entry/searches; ACU officers (after an anonymous tip) entered with Yeary’s apparent cooperation and found drugs and a firearm.
- November 11, 2010 (Lantana condominium): Officers notified a lessee, Nicole Sackmann, about Yeary’s shooting; she invited them in, they observed suspected cocaine in plain view, obtained her consent (verbal and written) to search and seized drugs and a safe containing oxycodone and cash after a warrant.
- District Court denied suppression for all three searches; Eleventh Circuit affirmed, applying distinct Fourth Amendment exceptions for each search (protective sweep, consent via ACU agreement, third-party consent/common authority).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Stuart-house protective sweep | Yeary argued the sweep and subsequent seizure were unreasonable and not justified by safety concerns. | Government argued officers had an arrest warrant, saw a firearm in plain view, and were told others were in the house, justifying a brief protective sweep and plain-view seizure. | Sweep valid: entry justified by arrest-warrant/prior plain-view firearm; protective sweep reasonably limited and discovery in plain view gave probable cause. |
| Validity of Lake Worth warrantless search under ACU agreement | Yeary argued the ACU "consent" was coerced because it was a condition to avoid detention and thus involuntary; search violated Fourth Amendment. | Government argued Yeary knowingly and voluntarily agreed to warrantless ACU searches as condition of in-house arrest; consent was valid and searches lawful. | Affirmed: Court found Yeary knowingly and voluntarily consented by signing clear ACU agreement; consent upheld under Schneckloth framework (majority). |
| Validity of Lantana condominium search based on third-party consent | Yeary argued Sackmann lacked authority to consent or her consent was involuntary. | Government argued officers reasonably believed Sackmann, as lessee, had common authority and her verbal/written consent was voluntary. | Affirmed: Officers reasonably believed Sackmann had authority; her consent was voluntary and search valid. |
| Scope/weight of pretrial-release search-conditions precedent | Yeary contended pretrial detainees should not forfeit Fourth Amendment protections simply by agreeing to search conditions; consent under coercion concerns. | Government relied on consent and public-safety interests; majority treated the agreement as valid consent (special concurrence urged a different analytical framework). | Majority upheld search on consent; concurrence agreed with outcome but preferred totality-of-the-circumstances balancing (Knights/Samson) and cautioned about treating pretrial consent as unlimited waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (establishes entry into dwelling to execute an arrest warrant may be justified)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (permits a limited protective sweep incident to in-home arrest)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness framework for consent searches)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probation search-condition analysis; consent/search-condition is a factor in the Fourth Amendment balancing)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolee search regime; balancing diminished privacy against public safety; upheld suspicionless searches for parolees under certain conditions)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party/common authority to consent to searches)