United States v. Johun Anderson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15849
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Anderson sold cocaine base to an undercover detective during a buy/bust in Kansas City, Missouri.
- Upon seeing police, Anderson fled into Horn’s north apartment and ran up stairs to a second-floor unit.
- Officers pursued him, observed activity from a balcony, and detained Anderson and two others at the apartment entrance.
- Horn, the apartment lessee, consented to officers entering and later to a protective sweep to ensure no others were inside.
- A search warrant was later obtained and executed, yielding drugs, a rifle, a handgun, ammunition, scales, phones, and currency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the balcony entry lawful under hot pursuit? | Anderson argues the balcony entry tainted the warrant. | Anderson contends hot pursuit did not justify balcony entry. | Yes; hot pursuit doctrine justified entry. |
| Did Horn's consent to enter render the entry to detain lawful? | Horn did not consent; Masters’ credibility issue. | Consent exists via Horn’s willingness to let officers in and remove occupants. | Yes; voluntary consent supported entry. |
| Did the protective sweep taint the search warrant affidavit? | Sweep tainted affidavit by describing observed items. | Sweep was lawful with consent and did not taint the affidavit. | No; consent to sweep made it lawful and non-tainting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (hot pursuit and exigent circumstances doctrine)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (immediacy of pursuit and exigent circumstances factors)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless entries and exceptions to warrant requirement)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (consent as exception to warrant requirement)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent authority)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep standards)
- United States v. Comstock, 531 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2008) (protective sweep justified with consent)
- United States v. Jones, 193 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 1999) (protective sweep with consent permissible)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit into private premises)
- United States v. Clement, 854 F.2d 1116 (8th Cir. 1988) (cocaine trafficking is a serious offense for hot pursuit)
- United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (suppression standard and review)
- United States v. Schmidt, 403 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2005) (hot pursuit and entry into dwelling)