United States v. Eric Lundin, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5236

Background

Early morning (≈4:00 a.m.) officers went to Eric Lundin’s residence after a BOLO/arrest request based on a victim’s report of violent burglary, kidnapping, and brandishing of firearms earlier that night.
Three officers stood on Lundin’s front porch, knocked without a warrant or identifying themselves, intending to arrest him.
After knocking, officers heard crashing from the backyard (likely overturned buckets); they ran to the back, ordered Lundin out, handcuffed him, and placed him in a patrol car.
While Lundin was detained, officers briefly searched the backyard/patio and observed two handguns in open view inside a clear plastic bag; the guns were seized.
A search warrant was obtained the next morning and additional items were seized. Lundin moved to suppress the patio handguns and pre-Miranda statements; the district court suppressed the handguns. The government appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether officers lawfully entered/occupied the porch and knocked ("knock-and-talk")	Officers may approach and knock; their conduct falls within the knock-and-talk implied license and was permissible despite early hour.	Officers exceeded the implied license because they approached at 4:00 a.m. with the subjective intent to arrest, not to seek consensual contact.	Knock at 4:00 a.m. with intent to arrest was an unconstitutional intrusion on the curtilage; knock-and-talk did not apply.
2) Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search after crashing/noises	Crashing noises created exigent circumstances that justified immediate entry/search and seizure of weapons.	Any exigency was caused by the officers’ unlawful knock; exigent-circumstance exception cannot excuse a search created by unconstitutional police conduct.	Exigency was caused by the illegal knock, so exigent-circumstance doctrine does not justify the search.
3) Whether a protective sweep justified the warrantless search	Sweep was permissible to ensure officer safety during arrest.	No reasonable, articulable suspicion existed that others were present; Lundin was secured in custody before the sweep.	Protective-sweep doctrine did not apply; no articulable suspicion and no ongoing risk once Lundin was handcuffed and removed.
4) Whether the inevitable-discovery (or independent-source) doctrine renders the weapons admissible	Even if initial entry was flawed, guns would have been discovered lawfully (warrant application/execution) so evidence should be admissible.	Officers had probable cause and could have obtained a warrant but failed to do so; inevitable-discovery cannot excuse deliberate failure to obtain a warrant.	Inevitable-discovery does not apply where officers had probable cause and failed to obtain a warrant; suppression affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home arrests generally require an arrest warrant)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (curtilage and limits of implied license to approach/knock)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (exigent-circumstances standard and rule against creating exigency by unconstitutional conduct)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (scope of protective sweep doctrine)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent-source doctrine distinct from inevitable discovery)
Merriweather v. 777 F.2d 503 (9th Cir.) (discussed re: independent-source versus inevitable-discovery treatment)