927 F.3d 1028
8th Cir.2019Background
- Police arrested a meth dealer, Justin Thurston, who identified his supplier "Pedro" as occupying room 239 at the Microtel Hotel; officers confirmed Sergio Diaz-Ortiz was the occupant.
- Officers applied for a search warrant based on Thurston's information.
- While awaiting the warrant, officers feared Thurston (recently released) would alert Diaz-Ortiz and evidence would be destroyed, so they went to room 239, knocked, then used a hotel key card to enter when Diaz-Ortiz approached the door.
- Officers detained Diaz-Ortiz, advised him of Miranda rights, did not search the room initially, and Diaz-Ortiz (after implying he wanted a lawyer) voluntarily told officers there were three pounds of methamphetamine in the room.
- A few hours later officers executed a signed search warrant and seized ~3 pounds of methamphetamine, $10,331, a loaded handgun, and small amounts of other drugs.
- At suppression hearing the district court found the entry was unlawful and suppressed Diaz-Ortiz’s statement, but held the later search was supported by an independent search warrant and denied suppression of seized evidence. Diaz-Ortiz raised a knock-and-announce suppression claim for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz-Ortiz's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence seized after an alleged knock-and-announce violation must be suppressed | Entry violated knock-and-announce rule under Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109, requiring suppression of fruits | Hudson controls: knock-and-announce violation unrelated to seizure; warrant was independent source so suppression not required | No plain error; suppression not required because the warrant was an independent source and Hudson forecloses exclusion |
| Whether Hudson v. Michigan applies to § 3109 claims | Hudson does not govern statutory § 3109 remedies so suppression may still apply | Circuits have applied Hudson to § 3109; even if unsettled, any contrary application is not "clear or obvious" error | Application of Hudson to § 3109 not clearly erroneous; plain-error standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (knock-and-announce violation does not require suppression when warrant was independently obtained)
- United States v. Gaver, 452 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2006) (Hudson disposes of knock-and-announce suppression claim)
- United States v. Bruno, 487 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2007) (Hudson compels that suppression is not the remedy for a § 3109 violation)
- United States v. Acosta, 502 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2007) (Hudson reasoning applies equally to § 3109)