22 F.4th 667
7th Cir.2022Background
- Officers Brenneke and Romines went to a Fort Wayne motel with an arrest warrant for Whitney Gosnell (a third party) after a tip the woman was staying with Larry Jones.
- The officers knocked, announced themselves, and after ~30–90 seconds Jones (fully dressed) opened the door; officers said they were not there for Jones and asked to verify Gosnell was not inside.
- Jones said “That’s fine,” stepped away from the door, and the officers entered the room; they told Jones they would look where a person could hide and would not open small drawers.
- Officers lifted one bed (found nothing) and, after Jones remarked Gosnell “couldn’t be under there,” lifted the second bed and discovered a firearm.
- Jones was later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and moved to suppress the gun; the magistrate and district court found no seizure, voluntary consent, and that the search was within the scope of consent.
- On appeal Jones argued (1) he was seized by the knocking and/or by showing the arrest warrant, (2) any consent was involuntary or (3) the search exceeded consent scope; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ knocking and brief waiting before entry constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure | Knocking and persistence transformed a consensual encounter into a seizure (relies on Jerez) | Knocks were brief, conversational, and Jones had time to refuse; a reasonable person would feel free to decline | Not a seizure — brief knock, tone, and Jones’s responses support no seizure |
| Whether showing an arrest warrant for a third party ripened the encounter into a seizure | The officers “flashed” the arrest warrant and that coerced acquiescence to authority | Jones did not preserve this argument below; even on plain-error review no evidence warrant affected his consent | Forfeited; no plain error — warrant did not render encounter a seizure |
| Whether Jones’s consent to enter/search was voluntary | Saying “That’s fine” was mere acquiescence to authority or coerced by police presence/warrant | Consent was verbal, given after a brief, noncoercive request; no force or prolonged detention | Consent was voluntary under the totality of circumstances |
| Whether searching under the bed exceeded the scope of consent | Lifting the bed was a physical intrusion beyond what Jones allowed and/or he effectively limited consent by saying Gosnell “couldn’t be under there” | Officers had consent to look where a person might hide; a reasonable person would expect under-bed checks | No clear error — looking under beds was within objectively reasonable scope; any claimed limitation was forfeited or equivocal |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (tests whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline/terminate police encounter)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (seizures occur by physical force or submission to authority)
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (clarifies seizure concept under either physical force or submission)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent is an exception to the warrant requirement; voluntariness assessed by totality of circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent given only after assertion of a warrant may be mere acquiescence and invalid)
- United States v. Jerez, 108 F.3d 684 (persistence in knocking and intrusiveness can convert a knock-and-talk into a seizure)
- United States v. Adeyeye, 359 F.3d 457 (brief knocks and conversational tone in knock-and-talk do not necessarily constitute a seizure)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent judged by what a reasonable person would understand consent to include)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (legal conclusions on search and seizure reviewed de novo)