United States v. Shawnton Deon Johnson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1594
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Officer Gregory stopped Shawnton Johnson after discovering via license-plate check that the truck’s registered owner was deceased and after observing a turn signal violation; Johnson admitted driving on a suspended license.
- While checking the vehicle for occupants, Gregory illegally searched the truck and found a sawed-off shotgun wrapped in a cloth; he then arrested Johnson.
- After the arrest, Gregory performed a full inventory search, completed tow paperwork (marked reason: “license suspended”), and had the truck impounded.
- Johnson moved to suppress the shotgun as the product of an illegal search; the government invoked the inevitable-discovery exception, arguing the gun would have been found during the inventory search performed when the truck was impounded.
- The district court initially suppressed but, on reconsideration, admitted the weapon; Johnson pleaded guilty to felon-in-possession while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the government proved a reasonable probability the shotgun would have been discovered by lawful means and that officers were actively pursuing those lawful means.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of inevitable-discovery exception | Illegal search; inevitable-discovery inapplicable because officer hadn’t begun impound/inventory when he searched | Officer already had leads (deceased registered owner; suspended license) making impoundment and inventory inevitable | Court: Exception applies — reasonable probability gun would have been discovered and lawful means were being actively pursued |
| “Active pursuit” requirement | Officer wasn’t actively pursuing the inventory at the time of the illegal search; government must show specific plan | “Active pursuit” satisfied by ordinary investigations and leads already in possession (ownership/registration inquiry) | Court: Active pursuit does not require pre-existing formal plan; ongoing investigation suffices |
| Use of “standard criteria” for impound/inventory | No standard criteria shown; impoundment unlawful without standardized basis so inventory would not be lawful | Officer testified disposition decisions are based on ownership; truck could not be released to anyone so impoundment fit department practice | Court: No plain error; testimony and reasonable inference supported existence of standard criteria |
| Compliance with inventory procedures & other challenges | Officer may not have strictly followed all department procedures; constitutional challenges to §922(g) and sentencing | Record shows inventory conducted and policy followed; statutory challenges foreclosed by precedent | Court: Remaining arguments meritless or foreclosed by circuit/supreme court precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson v. Fountain, 382 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (inevitable-discovery requires reasonable probability and active pursuit)
- United States v. Virden, 488 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007) (active-pursuit requirement explained; distinguishes cases where police were not pursuing leads)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (societal interest balances deterrence and admission of probative evidence; same-position rule)
- United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir. 1980) (early adoption of inevitable-discovery principles)
- United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984) (inevitable discovery not satisfied where lawful means were not being pursued before illegal conduct)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches lawful when impoundment based on standard criteria)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (recidivist allegation as sentencing fact remains viable)