United States v. Vincent Jones
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11523
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2013 police responded after a teenage daughter reported sexual assault by Vincent Jones; the victim’s mother, Jennifer Kelley, told officers Jones was a convicted felon with guns in a safe in the shared bedroom.
- Officers transported Kelley and the victim to the station for further inquiry, then returned to the mobile home with additional officers. Jones voluntarily exited the home, was handcuffed and detained about 10–20 feet from the door while officers remained inside.
- Kelley signed a consent-to-search form permitting a warrantless search of the residence including safes and boxes. An officer observed two gun safes and, after partially viewing guns in the smaller safe, the team stopped and obtained a search warrant.
- The warrant search recovered twelve firearms, ammunition, clips, and scopes; Jones was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and moved to suppress the seized evidence.
- The district court denied suppression (finding Kelley’s consent effective and, alternatively, inevitable discovery/independent source), denied reconsideration after Jones testified, and Jones was convicted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of co-tenant consent under Georgia v. Randolph when Jones was removed from doorway | Consent invalid because officers removed Jones to prevent his objection; Randolph bars consent of one occupant when a present co-tenant expressly refuses | Removal was objectively reasonable (lawful detention for officer safety and probable cause), so Fernandez controls and Randolph does not apply | Removal was objectively reasonable; Kelley’s consent effective; Randolph inapplicable |
| Nature of Jones’s removal — lawful detention or improper removal to avoid objection | Removal was not a lawful detention (no arrest or Miranda) and thus was aimed at avoiding objection | Facts (victim report, felony status, observed knives, voluntary exit) supported lawful detention and probable cause to detain | Detention was lawful and objectively reasonable under Fernandez; removal did not invalidate consent |
| Alleged contemporaneous objection by Jones at the door | Jones testified he told officers not to enter and asked about a warrant, amounting to an express refusal under Randolph | Court found Jones’s testimony not credible and, even if true, he was not "standing at the door and expressly refusing" when consent occurred; removal negated force of any prior objection | District court’s credibility finding upheld; any alleged objection would have been overcome by lawful detention and thus ineffective |
| Whether evidence from the gun safe should be excluded or admitted under inevitable discovery | If safe was closed and guns not in plain view, suppression required because Kelley lacked authority over Jones’s safe | Government showed probable cause for a warrant before the search (victim statements, felony record, visible safes/ammo) and would have lawfully obtained a warrant, so the guns would have been inevitably discovered | Inevitable discovery doctrine applies; even assuming safe was closed, evidence would have been discovered via a lawful warrant search |
Key Cases Cited
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (a physically present occupant’s express refusal defeats a co-tenant’s consent)
- Fernandez v. California, 574 U.S. (2015) (Sup. Ct. 2015) (Randolph does not apply when the objecting occupant is absent due to lawful detention or arrest)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (articulating inevitable discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussion of consent search principles and Randolph’s scope)
- United States v. Pelletier, 700 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 2012) (standards for proving inevitable discovery)