642 F. App'x 713
9th Cir.2016Background
- Police responded to a 911 report of a domestic-violence incident at an apartment; two officers knocked and the defendant’s wife answered the door. Officers entered without a warrant or asking whether she was injured.
- Harris was present, moved toward the door, was questioned, and then placed in handcuffs after officers conducted a brief protective sweep that they said found no other persons.
- During a second sweep of the kitchen an officer observed cocaine in plain view. Afterward, one officer ran a parole/probation records check confirming Harris was on supervised release; the other officer later interviewed Harris’ wife and then conducted a full warrantless search of the apartment, finding more drugs and paraphernalia.
- District court admitted Harris’s post-arrest statements that he had previously sold drugs; the jury was instructed those statements could be used for intent/knowledge and absence of mistake.
- Majority: first entry and second kitchen search violated the Fourth Amendment; remanded for an evidentiary hearing to decide whether the subsequent parole-based full search is admissible under exceptions to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine.
- Concurrence: would assume initial entry lawful but agrees second kitchen sweep was unreasonable; same remand result. Dissent: would uphold both entries and searches as justified by exigent circumstances and Harris’s behavior; would affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of initial warrantless entry/protective sweep | Entry/search unlawful because wife answered the door visible and uninjured; no specific facts showing imminent danger | Government: 911 call reporting domestic violence created exigent/emergency circumstances justifying entry | Majority: Entry unconstitutional — 911 call alone + visible, uninjured victim insufficient to show imminent danger |
| Lawfulness/scope of second kitchen sweep (plain-view cocaine) | Second sweep unreasonable because officers had already swept apartment, had occupants secured, and no facts indicating a weapon was accessible | Government: loud thud, Harris crouching by stove, and noncooperation gave reasonable belief of danger | Held: Second kitchen sweep unreasonable and violated Fourth Amendment |
| Validity of subsequent full parole search (fruit of the poisonous tree) | Harris: entire search tainted by initial unconstitutional entry; evidence must be suppressed | Government: parole status and later interview of wife gave probable cause and independently authorized search; alternatively, inevitable-discovery or attenuation exceptions apply | Remand: district court must hold evidentiary hearing to determine whether inevitable-discovery or attenuation exceptions dissipate the taint and render parole search admissible |
| Admission of Harris’s post-arrest statements (Rule 404(b)/403) | Statements were impermissible propensity evidence and more prejudicial than probative | Government: statements show intent/knowledge (defense was lack of knowledge of drugs); limiting instruction was given; not redundant | Held: Admission was proper; statements relevant to intent/knowledge, limiting instruction given, any error harmless as statements were admissible for legitimate purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752 (9th Cir.) (medical emergency/immediate risk standard for warrantless entry)
- United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (domestic-violence calls do not create per se exigency)
- United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. en banc) (exigency factors for warrantless entry)
- United States v. Snipe, 515 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.) (scope of searches must be reasonable to meet exigent need)
- United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.) (exigency in 911 domestic-violence contexts when victim not visible)
- United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir.) (need specific, articulable facts showing imminent harm)
- United States v. Grandberry, 730 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.) (probable cause required to believe parolee lives at residence before parole-search)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (Sup. Ct.) (government burden to show taint dissipated after unconstitutional search)
- United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (attenuated-basis exception to fruit of the poisonous tree)
- United States v. Ramirez-Sandoval, 872 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.) (inevitable discovery/attenuation analysis convergence)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (Sup. Ct.) (attenuation/independent source doctrines)
- United States v. Young, 573 F.3d 711 (9th Cir.) (inevitable discovery when routine procedures would have uncovered evidence)
- United States v. Andrade, 784 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir.) (inevitable discovery in inventory-search context)
- United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir.) (police training/routine procedures supporting inevitable discovery)
- United States v. Mehrmanesh, 689 F.2d 822 (9th Cir.) (prior narcotics possession/sale relevant under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir.) (prior narcotics evidence not unduly prejudicial if limiting instruction and not redundant)
- United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.) (limited probative value of prior bad acts when purpose not in issue)