United States v. Leon Binford
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5870
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police made two controlled buys of marijuana from Leon Binford in the parking lot of his apartment; a magistrate issued a warrant to search his apartment for drugs, firearms, and drug-trafficking evidence.
- A tactical SERT team forced entry; officers found Binford naked in the master bedroom doorway, handcuffed him, and later moved him to a small bathroom (still handcuffed) where Detective Kinal read Miranda warnings and obtained a signed waiver.
- In the bathroom interview (about 15–20 minutes) Binford admitted selling marijuana, identified a pistol in a closet, and said where marijuana was kept; officers recovered ~42 grams of marijuana, $190, packaging, and a pistol.
- Binford was arrested after the search, was tried, and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D)).
- At sentencing the district court applied both the ACCA enhancement (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) and the career-offender Guidelines enhancement (USSG §4B1.1) based on prior Ohio burglary convictions, producing a 15-year mandatory sentence; Binford appealed suppression rulings and sentencing.
- This panel affirmed denial of suppression (Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges) but vacated the sentence and remanded for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States (invalidating the ACCA residual clause).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of detention/questioning during execution of search warrant (Fourth Amendment) | Binford: moving/isolation to bathroom and 20‑minute interrogation exceeded Summers authority and constituted an unlawful seizure/arrest without probable cause | Government: detention and brief bathroom questioning were authorized by Summers and Muehler; questioning did not prolong the search and was based on reasonable suspicion from controlled buys | Court: Detention lawful under Summers; bathroom questioning did not prolong the search and thus did not require separate reasonable suspicion — no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Voluntariness of statements and Miranda waiver (Fifth Amendment) | Binford: Kinal’s statements (“you help me, I’ll help you”, refusal to say if Binford would go to jail) and confined, handcuffed state rendered waiver and statements involuntary/coerced | Government: Kinal gave Miranda warnings; Binford read, understood, and signed waiver; promises were not illusory or coercive | Court: Statements and waiver were voluntary and knowing; implied promises of leniency were not objectively coercive — admission proper |
| Admissibility of gun and evidence seized as fruit of interrogation (Exclusionary rule) | Binford: Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful seizure/interrogation | Government: No Fourth/Fifth Amendment violation so exclusionary rule does not apply | Court: Because detention and statements were lawful, evidence was admissible; convictions affirmed |
| Sentence enhancement under ACCA and Guidelines residual clause | Binford: Enhancement improper because residual clause is unconstitutionally vague (Johnson) and one prior Ohio burglary doesn’t qualify | Government: Initially relied on residual clause to qualify Ohio burglaries; later conceded one burglary did not qualify under ACCA | Held: ACCA enhancement vacated and sentence vacated/remanded for resentencing in light of Johnson; Guideline residual-clause reliance also requires reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (officers may detain occupants during execution of a search warrant)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (questioning occupants during a search is permissible so long as it does not prolong the search)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (residual clause of ACCA is unconstitutionally vague)
- United States v. Fountain, 2 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 1993) (analysis of detention and questioning during a search warrant execution)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (government bears burden to prove waiver and voluntariness by preponderance)
- United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416 (voluntariness/confession coercion test)