United States v. Joseph Lewis
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13583
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Two plainclothes police detectives (displaying badges) entered Freaks Tattoo Shop without a warrant seeking a person of interest; after ringing the reception bell and knocking with no response they proceeded into the shop’s open work area to reach a back-room door.
- Detective Gietzen knocked on the back-room door; Joseph B. Lewis (an employee) answered and agreed to speak in the work area. Detective Gietzen then noticed a holstered handgun on a shelf, grabbed it, removed it from the holster, and checked whether it was loaded.
- After the gun was seized, Lewis volunteered he was a felon; the detectives then said they would keep the handgun and left with it. Lewis was later charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
- Lewis moved to suppress the handgun; the magistrate and district court denied suppression. Lewis pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression denial. The Eighth Circuit reviews the denial de novo as to law and for clear error as to facts.
- The court considered two legal questions: (1) whether Lewis had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the work area such that the officers’ entry constituted a Fourth Amendment search, and (2) whether the warrantless seizure of the handgun was justified under plain-view or officer-safety principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the tattoo work area | Lewis: work area was off-limits to public by shop policy and reception desk/call bell created a barrier | Government: officers entered on same terms as public (they rang bell, knocked, then entered to reach employee) | Court: No reasonable expectation of privacy — officers entered as any customer would; entry did not violate Fourth Amendment |
| Whether plain-view exception justified seizure of handgun | Lewis: seizure was warrantless and not justified because incriminating nature wasn’t immediately apparent at moment of seizure | Government: gun was plainly visible and incriminating; seizure therefore plain-view exception | Court: Plain-view fails — no probable cause to associate gun with criminal activity at moment of seizure (Lewis’s later admission came after seizure) |
| Whether officer-safety justified temporary seizure of handgun | Lewis: no specific, articulable facts indicated an immediate danger; mere presence of gun and an unknown loaded state insufficient | Government: detectives could seize gun to ensure safety of officers and public | Court: Government failed — seizure not supported by specific, articulable facts giving reasonable belief of immediate danger; protective-seizure standard requires more than unparticularized fear |
| Remedy / disposition | Lewis: suppression of handgun and reversal of denial | Government: uphold denial based on plain-view or safety exception | Court: Affirmed denial in part (entry was lawful), reversed in part (initial seizure unlawful); remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ortega-Montalvo, 850 F.3d 429 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Russell, 847 F.3d 616 (8th Cir.) (expectation-of-privacy framework)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (privacy expectations in commercial premises differ from homes)
- Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985) (officer may accept invitation to do business and enter commercial premises)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968) (reasonable expectation of privacy in shared workplace limited to persons and invited guests)
- O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) (employee privacy in workplace context)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (protective frisk standard: officer safety and specific, articulable facts)
- Place v. California, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (warrantless seizure of personal effects generally unreasonable; balancing intrusion and government interest)
- United States v. Craddock, 841 F.3d 756 (8th Cir.) (incriminating nature must be immediately apparent for plain-view seizure)
- United States v. Malachesen, 597 F.2d 1232 (8th Cir.) (temporary seizure of a cocked/loaded gun during warrant-based search justified for safety)