United States v. Jones, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25844

Missouri officers surveilled Grow Your Own hydroponics store in Missouri and followed Jones to Kansas City, Kansas.
Officers, unaware they had crossed into Kansas, engaged Jones in an accusatory outside-the-home encounter and obtained his identification.
After Jones opened his back door, officers entered the home, prompting a gunfight and Jones’s injury.
Kansas police later obtained search warrants based on statements from the Missouri officers, seizing marijuana-related evidence.
Jones pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana and related firearm offenses, with this appeal challenging suppression of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Missouri officers’ seizure outside their jurisdiction violated the Fourth Amendment	Jones argues seizure occurred by extra-jurisdiction action	Jones contends jurisdictional lapse taints Fourth Amendment rights	Not a Fourth Amendment violation; federal standards apply regardless of state jurisdiction
Whether the initial encounter was a seizure or consensual	Jones asserts seizure at first contact	Missouri officers’ totality of circumstances shows consensual encounter	Initial encounter was consensual; no seizure at that stage
Whether there was reasonable suspicion to detain for license check	Jones challenges basis for detention	Totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion	Detention was supported by reasonable suspicion based on store context, parole history, and Jones’s reaction
Whether consent to enter the home was voluntary	Consent was coerced or not freely given	Consent given freely under totality of circumstances	Consent was voluntary and valid under Schneckloth/Harrison framework
Whether evidence obtained from the Kansas warrants was tainted by the Missouri seizure	Warrants based on tainted information	Missouri actions not constitutionally tainting; valid consent and reasonable suspicion	Warrants properly supported; suppression not warranted

United States v. Green, 178 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 1999) (federal test governs Fourth Amendment regardless of state law)
Bowling v. Rector, 584 F.3d 956 (10th Cir. 2009) (state law compliance not determinative of constitutional question)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (state restrictions do not alter Fourth Amendment protections)
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (state law considerations do not govern the federal reasonableness test)
United States v. Sawyer, 441 F.3d 890 (10th Cir. 2006) (consent to search may be valid without state-law authority)
Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1990) (limited validity; later decisions narrow its reach)
Swanson v. Town of Mountainview, 577 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2009) (contextualizes Ross and post-Ross developments)
Gonzales, 535 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2008) (state-law compliance not determinative of federal question)
Sawyer (repeated), 441 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 2006) (consent analysis focuses on totality of circumstances)