United States v. Simms
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24031
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Simms pleaded guilty to gun and drug offenses, receiving a total 270-month sentence (180-month mandatory for armed career criminal status under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1)) plus 30 months for supervised-release violation.
- Appellant argues Fourth Amendment suppression issues and challenging sentencing reasoning on multiple grounds.
- Warrant relied in part on marijuana found in garbage collected from Simms's Milwaukee property; the affidavit described winter garbage-collection rules but omitted details about curtilage and visibility.
- Milwaukee ordinances create winter rules allowing garbage collection from property, with notices to homeowners; the trash carts within the fenced yard may be within curtilage.
- Undercover surveillance observed Simms transfer a package into his home, leading to probable cause that his car contained drugs/evidence and thus the gun; eventual discovery was deemed inevitable.
- District court erred in sentencing by unclear rationale for consecutive terms and exceeding the guidelines, prompting a limited remand to address potential resentence within the advisory range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the garbage search | Simms: search invalid absent consent/curtilage protection. | Simms: officers exceeded authority by accessing private curtilage. | Garbage search lawful under appearance of consent under winter rules. |
| Lawfulness of the car search | Probable cause supported by drug-dealing context; gun could be within contraband. | Car search beyond immediate residence warrant scope; uncertain link to residence. | Probable cause existed; discovery of gun permissible as part of inevitable/arrest-related search. |
| Sentence within or outside guidelines and reasoning | Court’s explanation insufficient for above-guidelines sentence and consecutive terms. | Sentence misalignment with § 3553(a) factors; potential legislative error in explanations. | Remand for clarification; error identified in two minor respects; potential resentence within guidelines. |
| Consolidation of sentences and concurrent vs consecutive | Consecutiveness justified by overall punishment considerations. | Inconsistency with guideline range and potential overpunishment if other sentences affirmed. | Judgment requires correction to run the supervised-release violation concurrent; remand to resentence if necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage protects private areas surrounding home)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (curtilage and public exposure concepts in Fourth Amendment)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (garbage in curtilage remains protected)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) (cannot search private property without permission or warrant)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine applies to searches)
- United States v. Stotler, 591 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2010) (pre-arrest context and probable-cause considerations in drug cases)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (good-faith exception limits suppression in certain mistaken arrests)
- United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (limited remand procedures for sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Kirkpatrick, 589 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2009) (excessive sentence considerations under appellate review)