United States v. Michelle Simmermaker
998 F.3d 1008
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Officers obtained a warrant to search a Tipton, Iowa residence (owned by W.S.) for evidence of drug use/distribution; the warrant expressly authorized searching "locked containers."
- Officers found Michelle Simmermaker asleep on the living-room couch; a meth pipe and a Brink's security lockbox (with its keys nearby) were on the couch.
- Officers opened the lockbox and discovered 10.95 grams of methamphetamine and a digital scale; they then obtained a second warrant to search Simmermaker.
- Simmermaker moved to suppress the contents of the lockbox, arguing her status as a guest protected her belongings from the initial warrant search.
- The magistrate judge recommended suppression, but the district court adopted the magistrate’s facts and nevertheless denied suppression; Simmermaker pleaded guilty, appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether searching Simmermaker's Brink's lockbox under the original warrant violated her Fourth Amendment rights | Simmermaker: as a guest she had an independent expectation of privacy; the warrant targeted the premises/owner, not her personal effects | Government: Simmermaker's presence with a meth pipe, plus information that known drug users frequented the house, gave particularized suspicion; warrant covered locked containers | Court: Affirmed denial of suppression; officers had particularized suspicion tying Simmermaker to the criminal activity and the warrant lawfully covered the locked box |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dickerman, 954 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Hummel-Jones v. Strope, 25 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 1994) (visitor's Fourth Amendment interests when premises searched)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1979) (mere proximity to suspects does not establish probable cause to search a person)
- United States v. Cowan, 674 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (presence in premises and conduct can create particularized suspicion linking a visitor to the criminal activity)
- United States v. Giwa, 831 F.2d 538 (5th Cir. 1987) (visitor’s presence alone insufficient for probable cause)
- United States v. Clay, 640 F.2d 157 (8th Cir. 1981) (visitor may be frisked if suspected of involvement in the criminal activity forming the basis for the warrant)