United States v. Patrick Washington, 700 F. App'x 619

On July 5, 2014, LVMPD officers responded to a 911 call from Washington’s wife reporting she and her child were being held and that Washington had two firearms.
Officers entered the apartment, arrested Washington, and discovered four bullets on him during a lawful pat-down.
During a warrantless sweep, officers shone a flashlight into a stack of tires on the patio and observed two firearms; the firearms were seized without a warrant.
After discovery, detectives from the Firearms Investigation Unit (FIU) were summoned; a telephonic search warrant was later obtained based on the 911 call, Washington’s status as a felon, the ammunition on his person, and the firearms seen in the tire stack.
Washington moved to suppress the firearms as the product of an unlawful warrantless search; the district court denied the motion, and Washington appealed after pleading guilty while preserving the right to appeal.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the independent source doctrine supported admission because probable cause existed apart from the tainted evidence and detectives would have sought a warrant regardless of the initial discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether firearms seized during a warrantless home search must be suppressed or may be admitted under the independent source doctrine	Washington: the firearms were discovered during an unlawful search and thus must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule	Government: the independent source doctrine applies because probable cause existed absent the seized guns and detectives would have sought a warrant regardless	Held: Affirmed—independent source doctrine applies; evidence admissible
Whether the government proved detectives would have been present and sought a warrant absent the officers’ discovery of the guns	Washington: testimony was insufficient because there was no proof supervisors would have sent detectives if the guns had not been found	Government: officers and detectives credibly testified they would have contacted superiors and detectives would have come and applied for a warrant anyway	Held: Court credited officers’ and detectives’ testimony; finding that detectives would have sought a warrant was not clearly erroneous

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entries are presumptively unreasonable)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusionary rule preserves sanctity of the home by excluding unlawfully seized evidence)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (independent source doctrine balances deterrence and factfinding; permits evidence with an independent lawful source)
United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings and exclusionary-rule analysis)
United States v. Duran-Orozco, 192 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1999) (two-part test for independent-source warrants: probable cause without tainted evidence and whether officers would have sought a warrant absent the tainted evidence)
United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 1998) (deferential clearly erroneous standard for credibility findings)
United States v. Washington, 641 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1981) (appellate courts may affirm on any permissible basis)