United States v. Paige Davis
44 F.4th 685
7th Cir.2022Background:
- Police arrested Paige Davis (convicted felon) on a state warrant as he stepped out his front door; he told officers there were children inside.
- Officers entered without a warrant and performed a limited, nonaggressive protective sweep; an officer observed a .22 rifle in plain view in a bedroom closet during that sweep.
- About 45 minutes later homeowner Antionette Ewing-Jimerson arrived; she gave written and oral consent to a search after being advised of her rights; she was not detained and spoke voluntarily with officers.
- District court denied Davis’s motion to suppress, finding three alternative justifications: a protective sweep, exigent circumstances (child safety), and voluntary, untainted consent by Ewing-Jimerson.
- On appeal the majority affirmed based on the consent/attenuation analysis (consent was sufficiently attenuated from any illegal entry); the dissent argued attenuation was inapplicable because the rifle was discovered during the initial sweep and would instead implicate inevitable discovery/other doctrines.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homeowner’s consent was tainted by the initial entry | Davis: Consent was tainted by the prior illegal entry and so evidence must be suppressed | Gov’t: Consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from any illegality | Majority: Consent not tainted; attenuation established (45 min gap, consenting party arrived after sweep, no bad-faith misconduct) — search upheld |
| Whether initial warrantless entry was justified as a protective sweep or exigency | Davis: Sweep lacked specific facts to justify officer safety or exigency; burden on gov’t to show justification | Gov’t: Officers reasonably conducted a limited sweep given known firearm use and unknown ages/presence of children | Majority: Did not decide legality but found officers acted in good faith and conduct was limited/professional; no bad faith shown |
| Whether attenuation applies when the challenged evidence was first observed during the initial search | Davis: Attenuation cannot salvage evidence first discovered during the illegal sweep; at most inevitable discovery applies | Gov’t: Attenuation can apply to permit use of evidence seized later after untainted consent | Majority: Attenuation can apply; Liss and other precedent support admission here. Dissent: Attenuation inapplicable where the evidence was discovered during the illegal search and suppression should have been considered under inevitable discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation test for taint of consent)
- United States v. Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d 679 (Seventh Circuit attenuation factors)
- United States v. Conrad, 673 F.3d 728 (attenuation and gov’t burden)
- United States v. Liss, 103 F.3d 617 (attenuation analysis applied to subsequent lawful search)
- United States v. Pineda-Buenaventura, 622 F.3d 761 (temporal proximity and attenuation)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (purpose of exclusionary rule; deterrence focus)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (limits of exclusionary rule when misconduct not flagrant)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep standard)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (consent by co-resident with common authority)