United States v. Cooke
2012 WL 794050
5th Cir.2012Background
- Cooke pled guilty to felon in possession of firearms and body armor; suppression ruling denied; he reserves appeal on suppression question.
- Secret Service/ATF investigated counterfeiting; attempted knock-and-talk at Cooke residence after arrest, Cooke had previously refused consent to search.
- Residence described as a unique structure with a barn-like exterior, with interior living quarters beyond a set of interior doors; barn doors were open or easily accessible.
- Agents observed a shotgun shell and gun safe in plain view during the knock-and-talk, leading to a search warrant and discovery of firearms, ammunition, and a bulletproof vest.
- Cooke argued the entry crossed curtilage without warrant/consent and that Ima Cooke’s consent was vitiated by Cooke’s prior refusal under Randolph; district court denied suppression.
- The Fourth Amendment issue centers on whether the area inside the barn doors constitutes curtilage and whether any consent was valid under Randolph and attenuation doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering the outer barn doors for a knock-and-talk violated curtilage. | Cooke | Cooke | No curtilage violation; area not within curtilage. |
| Whether Ima Cooke's consent was voluntary and valid despite Cooke's prior refusal. | Cooke | Cooke | Consent found voluntary; not vitiated by Randolph. |
| Whether any curtilage violation was attenuated by Ima's consent. | Cooke | Cooke | Attenuation valid; consent broke causal chain. |
| Whether Randolph applies to absent, objecting cotenants to vitiate consent by present cotenant. | Cooke | Cooke | Randolph does not apply to absent, objecting cotenant; consent upheld. |
| What is the governing standard for suppressing tainted evidence when a curtilage issue is nuanced? | Cooke | Cooke | No suppression; attenuation and non-curtilage determination control. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor curtilage test guiding whether area around home is protected)
- United States v. Thomas, 120 F.3d 564 (5th Cir.1997) (guide for unusual residence curtilage and public-access considerations)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation principle in exclusionary rule analysis)
- Sheppard, 901 F.2d 1230 (5th Cir.1990) (attenuation of tainted statement when consent follows)
- Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (cotenant consent generally valid absent present objector)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (presence of cotenant bears on reasonableness of third-party consent)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (co-tenant's express objection defeats consent; present objector rule)
- United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.2008) (absent objecting cotenant not controlling; Randolph limited)
- United States v. Reed, 539 F.3d 595 (7th Cir.2008) (Randolph narrowly construed; absent objector not controlling)
- United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir.2008) (Randolph's scope clarified in presence/absence contexts)
- United States v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.2008) (absence of objecting cotenant can invalidate consent for absent objector)
- United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124 (5th Cir.1993) (attenuation considerations in taint analysis)