United States v. Derek Lamar Reddick
714 F. App'x 938
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Derek Reddick was convicted of conspiracy and transportation/enticing of a minor for prostitution after events at a hotel and appealed suppression rulings.
- Police encountered Reddick in a hotel hallway; officers briefly retained his ID and questioned him for about a minute before entering a hotel room (Room 212) where a minor was allegedly engaging in prostitution.
- Officers made a warrantless entry into Room 212 and observed evidence; they later obtained a search warrant for Room 212 (and Room 211) and seized additional evidence.
- The warrant affidavit contained references to evidence arguably obtained during the initial entry and one material misstatement (that Reddick paid for Room 211 rather than Room 212).
- Reddick moved to suppress, arguing (1) the hallway encounter was not consensual and (2) the independent source doctrine did not cure evidence obtained after a potentially illegal entry; the district court denied suppression and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hallway encounter was a seizure | Reddick: encounter coercive; not free to leave | Government: encounter consensual; Reddick could have left | Court: Encounter was consensual; no seizure (facts viewed for credibility in favor of government) |
| Whether evidence is admissible under independent source doctrine after an arguably illegal entry | Reddick: affidavit relied on unlawfully obtained info; warrant tainted | Government: affidavit still supported probable cause once unlawfully obtained info excised; officers would have sought warrant anyway | Court: Independent source applies; excised affidavit still supported probable cause and decision to seek warrant was not prompted by illegal entry |
| Whether a material misstatement in the affidavit required suppression | Reddick: misstatement about who paid for Room 211 undermines probable cause | Government: misstatement was innocent/negligent and remaining facts were incriminating | Court: Misstatement not made with deliberate falsity or reckless disregard; did not require voiding warrant |
| Whether suppression should be resolved on consent grounds instead of independent source | Reddick: initial consent to search arguably lacking | Government: alternatively argues apparent consent existed | Court: Declined to decide consent because independent source doctrine sufficed to admit evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Foster, 155 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (clear-error standard for factual findings)
- United States v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir.) (factors for consensual encounter analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (definition of seizure under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Noriega, 676 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir.) (independent source doctrine two-step test)
- Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1997) (affidavit falsehoods and suppression standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause as a practical, commonsense matter)
- United States v. Albury, 782 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.) (deference to district court probable cause determinations)