United States v. Hill
0:17-cr-00183
| D. Minnesota | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Joshua Francis Hill moved to dismiss a multiplicitous count and to suppress evidence seized from a van; Magistrate Judge Brisbois issued an R&R recommending dismissal of the multiplicitous count and denial of suppression.
- Hill argued the van was unlawfully seized and therefore he had standing to challenge the seizure and subsequent search; the R&R and district court agreed the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment.
- After the seizure, Hill’s mother, Ms. Saragosa, signed a written consent to search the van; the consent form expressly advised her of the right to refuse.
- The magistrate concluded, and the district court adopted, that Saragosa’s consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated the taint of the unlawful seizure under the attenuation doctrine.
- The Government did not respond to Hill’s objection to the R&R; Hill objected only to the attenuation analysis, not the finding on multiplicity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saragosa’s consent to search the van was voluntary and valid | Consent was voluntary and informed; she was told she could refuse | Consent invalid because continued unlawful seizure signaled she had no control over property | Consent was voluntary and valid |
| Whether consent purged the taint of the unlawful seizure (attenuation) | Consent and circumstances (advice of right, knowledge of arrest) interrupted causal chain | Consent was product of exploitation; no genuine intervening circumstances; agents’ continued seizure tainted consent | Consent sufficiently attenuated the illegality; evidence admissible |
| Whether law enforcement’s seizure was purposeful and flagrant enough to prevent attenuation | Conduct was not flagrant; no force, threats, or clear knowledge of unconstitutionality | Seizure was investigative and exploited to obtain consent, so attenuation fails | No purposeful/flagrant misconduct shown; attenuation stands |
| Multiplicity of counts in the indictment (Count II vs Count I) | Government conceded or did not object to R&R on multiplicity | Hill sought dismissal of multiplicitous count | Count II dismissed as multiplicitous |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (attenuation doctrine: intervening circumstances can purge taint of unlawful stop)
- United States v. LeBeau, 867 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2017) (three-factor attenuation test: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy/purpose)
- United States v. Whisenton, 765 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2014) (consent as intervening circumstance analysis)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (evidence obtained by exploitation of illegality must be excluded)
- United States v. Yousif, 308 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2002) (officer statements can vitiate voluntariness when defendant reasonably infers search will occur regardless)
- United States v. Simpson, 439 F.3d 490 (8th Cir. 2006) (considerations for purposeful/flagrant police misconduct)
- United States v. Barnum, 564 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2009) (consent influenced by police misconduct may be invalid)
- United States v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (intervening circumstances give opportunity to pause, refuse, or revoke consent)