United States v. Louis Hardison
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10531
8th Cir.2017Background
- Police responded to a domestic-disturbance call; victim reported Hardison threatened her with a knife and a gun. Officers spoke with Hardison at his front door; he agreed to talk inside.
- Inside, Sergeant Fienen asked if there was a gun; Hardison pointed to a duffel bag and said “The only gun I have is in there.” Officers recovered a firearm from the bag.
- After noting that firearm did not match the victim’s description, officers asked about another gun; Hardison led them to the bedroom and indicated there was a gun in the air-conditioning duct, saying “You can go get it.” Officers recovered a second firearm that matched the victim’s description.
- Hardison was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a late motion to suppress evidence the Friday before his bench trial and requested the suppression hearing be taken up with the trial.
- The district court combined the evidentiary suppression hearing with the bench trial (with the parties’ consent), heard all evidence, and deferred ruling on admissibility until after trial. Hardison testified and denied consenting to a search. Two weeks later the court denied suppression, found consent voluntary, convicted Hardison, and denied post-trial relief.
Issues
| Issue | Hardison's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by combining the suppression evidentiary hearing with the bench trial | Combining proceedings and using suppression testimony at trial violated constitutional and structural protections; court should have ruled pretrial | Trial court acted within discretion; defendant proposed/consented to combined procedure and waived objection | No error; combining was permissible under the circumstances and not structural error |
| Whether admission/use of Hardison's suppression hearing testimony at trial violated Simmons | Testimony given at suppression should not be used against him on guilt without explicit protection | Hardison consented to proceed and did not clearly object to use of his testimony for guilt | No Simmons violation — no clear objection/limitation preserved; testimony could be considered at bench trial |
| Whether evidence from the warrantless search of the home should be suppressed for lack of consent | Officers exceeded scope of permission to talk inside; no voluntary consent to search, so evidence should be suppressed | Hardison affirmatively indicated locations of firearms and failed to object to searches; conduct shows consent was given and voluntary | Denial of suppression upheld: court found consent (express and/or implied) was voluntary under the totality of circumstances |
| Whether any error was plain or structural requiring reversal | Any use of suppression testimony or combined procedure was plain/structural error affecting fairness | No plain error: sufficient independent evidence of guilt and no structural defect; waiver/consent bars reversal | No plain or structural error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (defendant’s testimony at suppression hearing ordinarily may not be used against him at trial unless no objection)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent assessed under totality of the circumstances; no requirement to advise of right to refuse)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a home to make a routine felony arrest violates Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (structural errors are limited; most constitutional errors are subject to harmless-error analysis)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for plain error review requires showing of error that is plain and affects substantial rights and fairness)
- United States v. Beckmann, 786 F.3d 672 (8th Cir. 2015) (continuation of a search without objection is circumstantial evidence that the search was within the scope of consent)
- United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2006) (consent may be implied by conduct; focus is on whether a reasonable person would believe consent was given)
- United States v. Garcia, 613 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2010) (voluntariness of consent is a factual question reviewed for clear error)