United States v. Gamache, 792 F.3d 194

On July 30, 2012, Maine officers served Randolph Gamache with temporary protection-from-abuse orders at his home; the orders prohibited his possession of firearms and required immediate surrender of any firearms.
Gamache opened the door and invited officers inside; officers read the orders aloud and handed him copies, and he signed acknowledging receipt.
Two shotguns, one a sawed-off (unregistered, barrel under 18 inches), were openly displayed on a living-room wall; officers either saw them from their lawful vantage point or Gamache pointed them out.
Officer Leskey removed the two wall-mounted shotguns; Gamache voluntarily turned over two additional guns. The encounter lasted ~40 minutes and was nonconfrontational; no search was conducted.
Later, Gamache made incriminating admissions to detectives that he had shortened the shotgun barrel; a federal grand jury charged him with possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)).
Gamache moved to suppress the shotgun and his statements, arguing his surrender was coerced by the state-court orders (Fifth Amendment) and the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment; the district court denied suppression and the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of consent to entry	Officers had consent to enter because Gamache opened the door and invited them in	Gamache argued his cooperation was coerced by the served orders	Consent was voluntary; district court's finding not clearly erroneous
Lawful seizure under plain view	Seizure lawful because officers were lawfully present and the firearms were in plain view	Gamache contended items weren't in officers' view until he pointed them out, so plain view inapplicable	Plain view applied; openly displayed firearms viewed from lawful vantage point
Probable cause to seize firearms	Probable cause existed because possession after service of the orders violated state law, making firearms evidence of a crime	Gamache argued officers lacked probable cause since they did not immediately recognize the barrel length	Officers had probable cause: service of orders rendered continued possession criminal, supporting seizure
Suppression of subsequent statements as fruits	Statements were admissible because there was no antecedent constitutional violation	Gamache claimed statements were fruit of coerced surrender and unlawful seizure	No antecedent violation found; statements not fruit of poisonous tree

Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (consent by person with apparent authority negates warrant requirement)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (scope and limits of plain view doctrine)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into home presumptively unreasonable)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (independent source doctrine limits exclusionary rule)
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (act of production and Fifth Amendment considerations)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine for statements)
United States v. Sanchez, 612 F.3d 1 (plain view elements articulated)
United States v. Teemer, 394 F.3d 59 (brief possession may support conviction)