United States v. Gordon, 741 F.3d 64

On June 5, 2011, Brandi Thaxton called 911 reporting past domestic violence by her boyfriend Shawn Gordon, said she was hiding in the basement, scared, and that weapons were scattered in the house. Dispatch relayed Thaxton’s fear to responding officers.
Officer Barney entered the home, went to the basement, accompanied Thaxton to retrieve her broken glasses, and observed weapons in plain view: an unstrung crossbow, swords, and the stock of a gun protruding from a case.
For safety, Barney took temporary possession of a loaded shotgun and seized the swords; medical personnel arrived and Thaxton was treated and taken to the hospital. Gordon was arrested upstairs for aggravated assault.
While transporting Gordon to jail, Barney learned Gordon was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms. The officers retained the shotgun.
Gordon was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession and moved to suppress the shotgun as the product of an unconstitutional warrantless search and seizure; the district court denied suppression. Gordon pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.

Issue	Gordon's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Validity of warrantless entry/exigency	Entry was unjustified because the violent incident was two days earlier and exigency had dissipated	Entry was justified by Thaxton’s immediate fear and risk of imminent harm	Entry was reasonable under the emergency-assistance exigency (affirmed)
Scope of officer following Thaxton into bedroom	Barney exceeded scope by accompanying her into bedroom after upstairs suspect secured	Accompanying victim to retrieve glasses and remaining away from suspect was reasonable	Following into bedroom was reasonable given victim’s fear and weapons in house (affirmed)
Seizure of shotgun under plain-view/probable cause	Seizure was unlawful because gun wasn’t known to be contraband at the time of taking	Temporary seizure was justified for safety; later felony information made gun contraband	Initial temporary seizure for safety was reasonable, but continued possession after exigency dissipated lacked independent justification
Remedy for the prolonged, short seizure (suppression)	Any unconstitutional retention requires suppression	Extended deprivation was de minimis; suppression not warranted because minimal intrusion and deterrence would be negligible	Short, inadvertent extended seizure was de minimis and did not require suppression (evidence admissible)

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless searches of a home are presumptively unreasonable absent established exceptions)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (officers may enter without a warrant to render emergency assistance when there is an objectively reasonable basis to believe an occupant is seriously injured or threatened)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (limited measures to protect safety and preserve status quo may be reasonable when grounded in special law enforcement needs)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view observations are not searches, but seizure requires incriminating character to be immediately apparent and lawful access)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel/plain-view seizure doctrine limits seizure where incriminating nature is not immediately apparent without further search)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (de minimis infringements on possessory interests may be constitutionally reasonable; government must balance intrusion against governmental interest)
United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2006) (two-part test for exigent-entry: objectively reasonable belief of immediate need and reasonable scope of intrusion)
United States v. Davis, 290 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2002) (no per se exception for warrantless entry in all 911/domestic-violence contexts; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)