United States v. Ronnie Whisenton
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16900
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Agents surveilled Adrian Bollinger, who was stopped after leaving Whisenton’s home; a dog alerted and agents found ~$73,000 in a hidden car compartment.
- Agents returned to Whisenton’s home later that day and conducted a knock-and-talk; they had a records check showing an occupant with prior gun/drug convictions.
- After the occupant (Whisenton’s wife, a corrections officer) went inside to fetch Whisenton, agents pushed her back, drew guns, and entered the home without a warrant or asserted consent.
- Inside, agents conducted a protective sweep, asked for consent twice; after about 15 minutes and a discussion (including a signed written consent form), Whisenton consented to a search.
- Search yielded firearms, >$100,000 cash, and drug evidence; Whisenton then received Miranda warnings and made incriminating statements.
- Magistrate found entry unlawful but recommended denying suppression because consent attenuated the taint; district court adopted the recommendation. Appellate court affirms; dissent would suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whisenton’s post-entry consent purged the taint of an illegal warrantless entry | Whisenton: consent was the product of ongoing coercion from an illegal entry (agents remained inside, armed, and pressured him), so it did not attenuate the Fourth Amendment violation | Government: even assuming the entry was illegal, consent was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated the taint due to time, intervening events, and lack of flagrant misconduct | Court held consent was an independent act of free will that purged the taint and affirmed admission of search evidence and statements |
| Relevance of temporal proximity between illegal entry and consent | Short interval and continuous presence made consent effectively immediate and coerced | Fifteen minutes elapsed between entry and consent—consistent with precedents finding attenuation | Court found 15 minutes showed sufficient temporal separation to weigh in favor of attenuation |
| Role of intervening circumstances (e.g., opportunity to reflect, form, Miranda) | Whisenton: no meaningful intervening circumstances because agents stayed inside and conduct overbore will | Government: smoking break, questioning about search, and a signed consent form (stating right to refuse) provided reflection and notice; Miranda given before post-consent interview | Court held intervening circumstances (smoking, dialogue, written consent, Miranda thereafter, family interaction) weighed heavily for attenuation |
| Purpose and flagrancy of the entry | Whisenton: entry was purposeful and flagrant (forceful entry, mixed story about consent/exigent circumstances, could have obtained warrant) | Government: entry driven partly by safety concerns, not flagrant investigatory misconduct; no forced or violent conduct after entry | Court found mixed motives but not flagrant misconduct; this factor slightly favored Government, supporting attenuation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Greer, 607 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2010) (framework for voluntariness and attenuation of consent following Fourth Amendment violation)
- United States v. Barnum, 564 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2009) (attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, purpose/flagrancy; precedent on timing analysis)
- United States v. Esquivel, 507 F.3d 1154 (8th Cir. 2007) (temporal-proximity examples showing short intervals can still attenuate)
- United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2006) (consent/attenuation analysis following alleged Fourth Amendment violation)
- United States v. Martinez, 168 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 1999) (police may request consent without automatically rendering conduct unconstitutional)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (Supreme Court emphasis on purpose and flagrancy in attenuation analysis)