659 F. App'x 1023
11th Cir.2016Background
- Murray was a passenger in a vehicle stopped on March 19, 2013 for an expired tag; officers removed him, performed a pat-down, and found a gun and a baggie that smelled of marijuana.
- Police executed a search warrant at Murray’s home on March 27, 2013 after observing short, frequent visits to the house and seizing drugs, a gun, and cash from a car leaving the residence.
- Murray was detained outside the house (on an adjacent driveway) during execution of the March 27 warrant and made statements to officers after initially invoking his right to counsel.
- Murray was indicted on counts including possession of a firearm by a felon and possession with intent to distribute marijuana; he moved to suppress evidence and later challenged other pretrial and sentencing matters on appeal.
- The district court denied Murray’s suppression motions, rejected claims of vindictive prosecution and denial of his right to testify, and applied sentencing enhancements including ACCA and gun-in-connection enhancements; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of March 19 traffic-stop seizure and searches | Evidence seized (gun, baggie) should be suppressed because seizure/search were unlawful | Stop was lawful due to expired tag; officer could order passenger out and pat-down for weapons; plain view and marijuana odor gave probable cause | Denial of suppression affirmed; stop, pat-down, plain view seizure, and probable cause to arrest upheld |
| Validity of March 27 search warrant | Warrant lacked probable cause (relied on stale/insufficient info) | Affidavit showed recent observations of short visits and seizure from car leaving house corroborating drug activity | Warrant valid; magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause |
| Lawfulness of detention during warrant execution | Detention unlawful because Murray was not on property covered by warrant | Officers may detain occupants within the "immediate vicinity"; Murray was within sight and could re-enter house | Detention lawful under Bailey; within immediate vicinity |
| Voluntariness of statements / right to counsel (Miranda/Edwards) | Statements should be suppressed; asserted invocation of counsel and allegedly coercive promises/threats | Officers did not promise release of family; any desire to protect family does not make waiver involuntary absent official coercion; probable cause existed to arrest family | No suppression; magistrate credibility findings accepted and waiver found voluntary |
| Vindictive prosecution re: new Count Five after Speedy Trial dismissal | Adding Count Five after dismissal was vindictive prosecution violating due process | No presumption of vindictiveness pretrial; government offered nonvindictive reason (sentencing/inextricability concern) | Denial of dismissal affirmed; no actual vindictiveness shown |
| Right to testify alleged denial | Court failed to ensure Murray knew consequences of testifying and admissibility of priors | Defense counsel responsible; court informed Murray of right and consequences generally; Murray consulted counsel and declined to testify | No plain error; no indication Murray was confused or coerced; waiver knowing |
| Sentencing enhancements (ACCA, §2K2.1(b)(6)(B), §4B1.4) | Enhancements improperly applied | Murray had three qualifying predicates for ACCA; gun found in close proximity to drugs supports §2K2.1 enhancement; acquittal on related counts does not bar consideration at sentencing | Enhancements proper; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boyce, 351 F.3d 1102 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 117 S. Ct. 882 (1997) (officer may order passengers out of vehicle during lawful stop)
- Terry v. Ohio, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968) (pat-down for weapons justified by officer safety)
- United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.) (plain view doctrine discussion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983) (probable cause for warrants assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013) (detention of occupants within immediate vicinity during execution of warrant)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 101 S. Ct. 1880 (1981) (right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 105 S. Ct. 1285 (1985) (post‑Miranda waiver voluntary absent official coercion)
- United States v. Watts, 117 S. Ct. 633 (1997) (acquittal does not preclude consideration of conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Carillo‑Ayala, 713 F.3d 82 (11th Cir.) (gun found near drugs supports enhancement)