United States v. Owen, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1273

On July 26, 2014 Tulsa police responded to a dispatch for domestic assault and battery with a firearm at Moore’s residence; officers knocked, Moore opened the door, appeared upset, and officers entered after Moore stepped back and gestured.
Officers swept the home for safety, found defendant in the master bedroom, detained him briefly, and discovered Moore’s two young children in the house.
One child indicated a gun existed and went to the master bedroom; Officer Franklin followed the child, who pulled a handgun from a dresser drawer; Franklin retrieved the firearm from the child.
Moore then told officers the gun belonged to her and told them they could take it; officers seized the firearm and transported it to TPD evidence storage; defendant was released and later charged federally as a felon in possession and under the domestic-violence felony provision.
Defendant moved to suppress the firearm as the product of a warrantless entry, sweep, investigation, and seizure; the court held an evidentiary hearing and denied suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge entry	Defendant lacks Fourth Amendment standing	Defendant was overnight/accepted guest and has privacy interest	Defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy as an overnight/accepted guest; has standing
Validity of entry (consent/exigent)	Moore consented to entry; alternatively exigent circumstances	Entry exceeded warrant requirement	Moore had actual authority and voluntarily consented; entry lawful
Protective sweep / continued investigation	Officers’ sweep and follow-up investigation were justified by exigency to protect victim/children	Sweep and subsequent questioning were unconstitutional searches/seizures	Sweep was justified by exigent circumstances; post-sweep questioning was a consensual encounter and not a Fourth Amendment seizure
Seizure of firearm (standing; exigency vs consent)	Defendant lacks standing to challenge seizure; actions outside warrant exceptions	Seizure violated Fourth Amendment	Court assumed defendant had standing but found pre-recovery entry into bedroom justified by exigent circumstances; post-recovery seizure valid based on Moore’s apparent and voluntary consent; no suppression

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entries presumptively unreasonable)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (exigent circumstances permit warrantless entry to prevent harm)
Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent to search)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent determined from totality of circumstances)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (apparent authority for consent if officer reasonably believes third party has authority)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (limits on scope of warrantless searches into exigent circumstances)
Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (ownership of property is a factor in Fourth Amendment interest but not dispositive)
United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710 (Tenth Circuit two-part exigency test: reasonable belief of immediate need and reasonable scope/manner)
United States v. Gordon, 741 F.3d 64 (seizure of weapon encountered while protecting an alleged victim under circumstances of known weapons and danger)
United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (application of exclusionary rule and suppression standards)