United States v. Eric Sallis
920 F.3d 577
8th Cir.2019Background
- On Nov. 27, 2016 police linked Eric Sallis to a shooting; a subsequent search of his residence recovered casings and blood but no firearm. Outstanding arrest warrants existed for Sallis.
- A long‑trusted confidential informant (CI) told police on Dec. 9 that Sallis was at a specific apartment and that children were present; officers surveilled the unit and observed Sallis enter and exit it and engage in suspected drug‑trafficking activity.
- Officers arrested Sallis in a vehicle; they found a phone, a silver bag containing ~1/4 pound marijuana, and over $1,500 in cash near where he sat. Sallis denied living in the apartment and said he was "visiting."
- While preparing a search warrant, officers went to the apartment to check on the reported children. A door was opened a crack, children were seen, officers entered to secure the premises, and later a resident arrived.
- The resident asked to speak with Sallis; while Sallis was in custody and had been Mirandized he told her to "get [his] bag" and said "I'll give it to you" (referring to marijuana). The resident brought a tote and bag; officers smelled and observed packaged marijuana and included that information in the warrant affidavit. The subsequent warrant search recovered marijuana, drug paraphernalia, 9mm ammunition, and a 9mm handgun.
- Sallis moved to suppress evidence arguing (1) the officers’ initial entry was an illegal warrantless entry, (2) he did not validly consent to the seizure/search of his bag, and (3) inevitable discovery did not save the evidence. The district court denied the motion; Sallis pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Sallis's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers’ initial entry into the apartment was justified under a community‑caretaking/emergency exception | Entry was unlawful; officers lacked specific, reliable facts that children were present and in danger | Even if initial entry was error, nothing material to the warrant came from that entry; consent and inevitable discovery independently validate evidence | Court did not need to rest on caretaking exception; focused on consent and inevitable discovery and affirmed denial of suppression |
| Whether Sallis voluntarily consented to seizure/search of the tote/bag | Statements to the resident (while in custody) were not voluntary consent; seizure flowed from illegal entry and thus tainted | Sallis expressly/implicitly authorized the resident to retrieve his bag and told officers "I'll give it to you" after being Mirandized; custody alone does not negate voluntariness | Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances; district court’s factual findings supported by record |
| Whether the evidence would nevertheless be excluded despite consent because it was obtained via illegal conduct | Officers exploited illegal entry to obtain information added to the warrant affidavit; suppression required | Even assuming illegal entry and invalid consent, the inevitable discovery doctrine applies because lawful means would have produced the same evidence | Inevitable discovery applies; officers had sufficient independent probable cause to obtain the warrant absent the challenged information |
| Whether the warrant application was supported absent the marijuana observed after the entry | N/A (argues that affidavit was tainted by unlawfully obtained info) | Affidavit already had CI tip, surveillance linking Sallis to the apartment, observed drug‑trafficking indicators, contraband and cash found in vehicle, knowledge firearms accompany drug trade, and prior shooting ties | Court held the warrant would have issued on those facts; evidence admissible under Nix inevitable‑discovery doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (establishes inevitable discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Wolff, 830 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2016) (consent search exception principles)
- United States v. Bearden, 780 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2015) (factors for voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Aguilar, 743 F.3d 1144 (8th Cir. 2014) (government bears burden to prove consent by preponderance)
- United States v. Morris, 915 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for suppression denial)
- United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2008) (discussion of circuit’s approach to inevitable discovery)