47 F. Supp. 3d 1003
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- At ~12:30 a.m. on April 23, 2013 Deputy Aponte interviewed Susan Hinds, who reported that Eric Lundin had forced her into his truck, threatened her with two handguns, made her take pills, and made gang-related threats (Mongols). Deputies issued a BOLO and sought Lundin's arrest.
- Around 3:54–4:00 a.m., Areata and Humboldt County officers went to Lundin’s residence, knocked, heard crashing noises from the rear, loudly identified themselves, and ordered the occupant to come out. Officers heard movement, detained Lundin in the backyard, handcuffed him, and placed him in a patrol car.
- During a warrantless entry/search immediately after the arrest officers observed and seized two handguns in a clear plastic bag in the backyard. Officers photographed the bag and Deputy Aponte later seized it.
- The next morning (April 24) Deputy Fulton obtained a search warrant for Lundin’s home; officers executed it and seized guns, phones, a methadone prescription bottle, computers/hard drives, and gang paraphernalia. State charges were later dismissed; federal felon-in-possession charges followed.
- Lundin moved to suppress: (1) evidence and statements from the April 23 warrantless approach/search; (2) evidence from the April 24 warrant (challenging its sufficiency and seeking a Franks hearing); and (3) post-arrest statements as Miranda violations. The Court held a suppression hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Lundin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of officers’ entry onto front porch / curtilage at ~4:00 a.m. | The approach was a permissible "knock-and-talk"; officers had BOLO and were locating a suspect. | Officers exceeded implied license: visit at 4 a.m. and objective purpose was to search/locate/arrest, not to consensually speak. | Court: Not a lawful knock-and-talk; approach was a Fourth Amendment search outside scope of implied license and unconstitutional. |
| Lawfulness of the subsequent warrantless search of backyard/home (seizure of two guns) | Protective sweep, exigent circumstances, or plain-view justified the search and seizure. | No lawful basis: Lundin was seized inside curtilage when officers ordered him out; protective sweep/search and exigency doctrines inapplicable; no probable cause others were present to justify search. | Court: Warrantless search/seizure on April 23 unconstitutional; guns seized then suppressed. |
| Applicability of inevitable discovery / independent-source (admitting April 24 warrant fruits despite April 23 illegality) | Even if April 23 was unlawful, officers would and did obtain a warrant April 24; April 24 search provided independent source and/or guns would inevitably have been discovered. | Inevitable-discovery inapplicable: seized items were movable and could have been removed; police had time to obtain a warrant before intruding; Murray/Mejia bar reliance where police had probable cause but did not attempt to obtain a warrant. | Court: Murray/Duran-Orozco analysis purging tainted facts yields probable cause for April 24 warrant as to many items; but inevitable-discovery does not justify admission of the April 23-seized guns. April 24 warrant evidence (purged of tainted factual nuggets) admissible. |
| Alleged false statements/omissions in April 24 warrant affidavit (Franks) and Miranda violations | Warrant affidavit truthful and supported probable cause; no Franks hearing required. United States concedes certain post-arrest questioning is inadmissible in case-in-chief. | Affidavit omitted/ misrepresented gang status and facts about April 23 seizures; seeks Franks hearing; also seeks suppression of statements obtained in violation of Miranda. | Court: Denied Franks hearing — defendant failed to make substantial preliminary showing of intentional/reckless falsehoods or material omissions. Miranda: two post-arrest questioning instances suppressed for use in case-in-chief; physical fruits of those answers not suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) (approach onto home curtilage for investigative search is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrant required to effectuate an in-home arrest)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (scope and standards for protective sweeps incident to arrest)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent-source doctrine permitting admission when a warrant-authorized search is truly independent)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable-discovery doctrine and its proof requirements)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standards for claiming false statements/omissions in warrant affidavits and entitlement to a hearing)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology to explore details of the home is a search)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (subjective intent of officers does not vitiate an otherwise objectively reasonable stop)
- United States v. Young, 573 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2009) (limits on inevitable-discovery where police short-cut warrant procedures)
- United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1995) (inevitable-discovery cannot excuse police failure to seek an available warrant)