21 F.4th 510
8th Cir.2021Background
- Officers responded to a 911 call reporting Raynesha Amling was being held by a man with a gun in motel Room 220; caller gave Amling’s name and phone number, which officers verified.
- On arrival Amling said she was fine and would leave in an Uber; officers initially ended the investigation but later learned Amling had an outstanding arrest warrant and detectives pursued charges against Smith.
- Officers arrested Amling when she left; Smith did not come to the door until detectives returned, at which point officers entered, handcuffed him, and transported him to the station.
- A search warrant for Room 220 was issued shortly after Smith’s arrest; the search uncovered marijuana, three firearms, ammunition, a phone, and cash; a neighboring occupant, Jennifer Allred, later identified Smith from a mugshot after officers observed a bullet hole in the dividing wall.
- Smith moved to suppress the room evidence, his stationhouse statements, and Allred’s photo identification; the district court denied suppression, Smith entered a conditional guilty plea, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Gov't Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrant | Affidavit lacked probable cause: October shooting was stale; no nexus to Room 220; 911 caller anonymous/unreliable | Totality of circumstances (911 corroboration, identification of Smith, prior shots-fired investigation) supplied a fair probability firearms would be in Room 220 | Affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause; time and nexus concerns were insufficient to invalidate the warrant |
| Entitlement to Franks hearing / omitted facts | Magistrate omitted exculpatory facts (caller knew only first name, Amling said she was fine, no gun seen, no signs of disturbance) recklessly; inclusion would defeat probable cause | Even if omitted facts included, totality still supports probable cause; omitted facts do not negate warrant | Assuming hearing, supplementation would not destroy probable cause; no suppression required |
| Warrantless entry into room / consent | Entry was nonconsensual; statements and evidence from that entry must be suppressed | Inevitable discovery: officers were actively pursuing a valid search warrant and would have discovered evidence lawfully | Even if entry lacked consent, inevitable discovery doctrine admits the evidence; warrant challenge rejected |
| Miranda waiver validity | Waiver involuntary/uninformed because arrest surprised him, he was cold during transport, and not told arrest reason | Smith expressed desire to talk, initialed each Miranda waiver line, was literate and had prior contact with law enforcement; totality supports knowing waiver | Waiver was knowing and intelligent; written, express waiver corroborates admissibility |
| Photo identification by neighbor | Single-photo display was impermissibly suggestive and created risk of misidentification | Identification was reliable under totality (recent conversation, multi-day acquaintance, prompt and certain ID) | Photo ID admissible; no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (prohibits warrantless, nonconsensual entry to effect a felony arrest in a home or temporary dwelling)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requirements for suppression when an affidavit contains material falsehoods or omissions made with reckless disregard)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tip lacking predictive information lacks moderate indicia of reliability)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (factors for assessing reliability of eyewitness identifications)
- United States v. Conner, 127 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 1997) (inevitable discovery doctrine and application to motel rooms)
- United States v. Johnson, 848 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2017) (nexus and probable-cause review under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Miller, 11 F.4th 944 (8th Cir. 2021) (Franks-related de novo review and standards for assessing supplemented affidavits)