United States v. Terry
915 F.3d 1141
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- DEA agents executed an arrest warrant for Dimitris Terry at his apartment; they arrested him outside and took him to the field office for questioning.
- Two agents remained and knocked; a woman (later identified as Ena Carson) answered in a bathrobe, appearing sleepy; agents did not ask her identity or relationship to Terry before entering.
- Carson immediately consented to a search and signed a consent-to-search form; the agents began searching and later discovered items linking Terry to the residence.
- Only after the search began did agents learn Carson was the mother of Terry’s child and that she did not live at the apartment.
- At the field office, agents read Terry his Miranda rights; he refused to sign a rights form but agreed to speak, and the agents noted "Verbal Only." Terry confessed during the interview.
- Terry moved to suppress (1) evidence from the apartment search (arguing Carson lacked actual or apparent authority) and (2) his post-arrest statements (arguing he did not knowingly waive Miranda). The district court denied both; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Terry) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless search based on third-party consent | Carson lacked actual or apparent authority; agents knew only that she answered in a bathrobe and should have inquired further | A person answering and permitting entry in the morning in a bathrobe could reasonably be believed to have authority to consent | Reversed: bathrobe/appearance alone did not support reasonable belief of joint access or control; officers had duty to inquire further; search evidence suppressed |
| Validity of Miranda waiver for post-arrest statements | Terry’s refusal to sign the waiver indicates he did not knowingly waive Miranda | Terry’s sophistication and voluntary answers constitute an implied/knowing waiver despite not signing | Affirmed: under Berghuis, Terry knowingly waived rights by answering questions with understanding; statements admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2000) (warrant requirement subject to consent exception)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (exceptions to warrant requirement are carefully defined)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent based on joint access or control)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent authority measured by facts known to officers at the time)
- United States v. Alexander, 573 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 2009) (apparent-authority analysis limited to facts known when consent sought)
- United States v. Goins, 437 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2006) (duty to inquire when facts suggest ambiguity about authority)
- United States v. Ryerson, 545 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2008) (apparent authority requires joint access or control for most purposes)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (knowing Miranda waiver can be implied by course of conduct)
- United States v. Burnside, 588 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2009) (deference to district court credibility findings in suppression hearings)