501 F. App'x 379
6th Cir.2012Background
- Starnes was convicted on two counts of armed bank robbery and one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a),(d); he challenges suppression of evidence seized at his home and vehicle during an arrest for parole violation and challenges his sentence.
- Defendant’s parole status is central: Ohio APA claimed he remained on parole despite a 2010 court order releasing him from supervision; the order affected 1993 and 2005 convictions, creating conflicting supervision statuses.
- In 2010, after the court had ordered release from supervision, APA officials sent an email contesting the court’s order, arguing continued supervision until final release; no formal appellate action followed.
- Defendant failed to report as a parolee; APA issued a Violator-at-Large Notice leading to his arrest for the parole violation.
- Police and APA executed a knock-and-announce entry at Defendant’s apartment; Kim Starnes was present, was handcuffed, and later consented to an FBI search under a consent form read to her by an agent.
- FBI and APA conducted searches that yielded items linking to the bank robberies; the district court denied the suppression motion, and Defendant was convicted at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to search/arrest post-order release | APA argued continued parole authority despite order to release. | The order released him from supervision mandated suppression of evidence. | APA lacked authority to arrest/search under the mistaken order; suppression required. |
| Good faith exception to exclusionary rule | APA acted in good faith by notifying court of its position. | No good faith basis because order was binding and knowingly ignored. | Good faith exception did not apply; exclusion required. |
| Consent to search and Randolph applicability | Kim’s consent valid under common authority; consent justified searches. | Defendant objected; Randolph prohibits searches where a physically present resident refuses consent. | Kim’s consent not freely voluntary; Randolph controls; suppression proper for at least part of the searches. |
| Harmless error | Exclusionary error did not affect verdict given other evidence. | Error likely affected the jury’s assessment given linkage of seized items to robberies. | Error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule not automatic; deterrence-based good-faith inquiry)
- Randolph v. United States, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (physically present resident's consent controls; mutual consent issues)
- United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 1999) (voluntariness of consent; totality of circumstances)
- Tatman, 397 F. App’x 152 (6th Cir. 2010) (consent in domestic/volatile context; coercion considerations)
- Grooms, 6 F. App’x 377 (7th Cir. 2001) (limits of court-ordered authority to enforce orders by agencies)