United States v. Kenneth Door
647 F. App'x 755
9th Cir.2016Background
- Kenneth Door was convicted after law enforcement searched his home and later obtained jailhouse statements; he appealed the denial of suppression motions and aspects of his sentence.
- Police relied on a tip from "Joe," an officer’s sense that Door had followed another officer’s car, and observations that Door’s residence appeared occupied but he did not answer the door; officers searched the house based on these combined facts.
- Door made post-arrest statements to Officer Hansen in jail 19 days after arrest; Door later challenged their admission on Miranda and voluntariness grounds but failed to raise the Miranda claim timely in district court.
- At sentencing, the district court treated Door as an Armed Career Criminal based on six prior Washington second-degree burglary convictions, triggering ACCA enhancements and raising his guidelines to 34.
- The government also sought sentencing enhancements for (1) possession of a destructive device (a seal bomb), (2) possession of a firearm in connection with another felony, and (3) obstruction of justice; the district court made no factual findings on these enhancements.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, deferred ruling on the ACCA issue pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States, and rejected the destructive-device enhancement and the court’s ability to affirm other enhancements without required findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of home search | Joe’s tip unreliable; following/officer observations were hunches | Combined observations gave reasonable cause to investigate/search | Search was supported by reasonable cause under totality of circumstances |
| Miranda waiver for jail statements | Statements involuntary and Miranda protections violated | Government argued prior Miranda advisals sufficed; district court considered waiver | Miranda claim forfeited for failure to timely raise; Vasquez exception not met |
| ACCA classification of prior burglaries | Door argued prior second-degree burglaries not violent felonies under ACCA | Government argued they qualified; position changed during litigation | Deferred pending Supreme Court decision in Mathis; no resolution now |
| Sentencing enhancements (destructive device, firearms-in-connection, obstruction) | Enhancements improperly applied without requisite findings; seal bomb not a destructive device without intent | Government sought all three enhancements | Destructive-device enhancement rejected; firearms and obstruction enhancements remanded for district court findings if needed after Mathis |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established standards for stop-and-frisk and reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances approach to reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1988) (exception for considering unpreserved claims in limited circumstances)
- Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) (influenced government’s changing position on ACCA categorization)
- United States v. Fredman, 833 F.2d 837 (9th Cir. 1987) (commercial explosives are not "destructive devices" absent intent to use as a weapon)
- United States v. Gonzales, 506 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (firearm can ‘facilitate’ drug offense; used for §2K2.1(b)(6) analysis)
- United States v. Routon, 25 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (discusses potential emboldening role of firearms in drug crimes)