927 F.3d 1028
8th Cir.2019Background
- June 16, 2016: Officers arrested Justin Thurston, who identified his meth supplier “Pedro” as occupying Microtel Hotel room 239; management confirmed Sergio Diaz-Ortiz rented that room.
- Officers applied for a search warrant based on Thurston’s information; while awaiting the warrant they learned Thurston had been released and feared evidence destruction.
- Officers went to room 239, knocked, then entered using a hotel key card when Diaz-Ortiz approached; they detained him, advised Miranda rights, and did not search the room at that time.
- Diaz-Ortiz made an unprompted statement that there were three pounds of meth in the room; later, after a signed search warrant arrived, officers searched and seized meth, cash, a handgun, heroin and cocaine.
- At the suppression hearing, the district court found the entry unlawful, suppressed Diaz-Ortiz’s statement, but denied suppression of the physical evidence because the search warrant was an independent source.
- On appeal, Diaz-Ortiz raised, for the first time, that evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. § 3109 knock-and-announce violation; the court reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence seized after an alleged knock-and-announce violation must be suppressed | Diaz-Ortiz: knock-and-announce breach requires suppression of evidence obtained after the entry under the Fourth Amendment and § 3109 | Government: Hudson v. Michigan controls; knock-and-announce violation unrelated to the seizure so exclusionary rule inapplicable; warrant was independent source | No plain error; suppression not required because warrant and seizure were independent and Hudson forecloses the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (knock-and-announce violation does not require suppression when evidence inevitably discovered by valid warrant)
- United States v. James, 353 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2003) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved Fourth Amendment claims)
- United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of plain-error review)
- United States v. Gaver, 452 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2006) (Hudson disposes of knock-and-announce suppression claim)
- United States v. Bruno, 487 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2007) (Hudson requires that suppression is not the remedy for § 3109 violations)
- United States v. Acosta, 502 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 2007) (Hudson reasoning applies to § 3109 claims)