United States v. William Council
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10796
8th Cir.2017Background
- On Aug. 23, 2013 deputies received corroborated reports that William Council pointed a sawed-off shotgun at two people and threatened one of them.
- Deputies Foley and Blehm went to Council’s camper that evening to question him (a “knock-and-talk”); Council answered the outward-swinging door wearing only underwear and stood in the doorway with a blanket obstructing the interior view.
- After denying involvement and threatening the complainant, Council refused a request to search and told the deputy to get a warrant; Deputy Foley then seized Council’s arm and attempted to remove him from the camper when Council resisted and tried to retreat behind the blanket.
- Deputies entered, removed Council, and Deputy Blehm observed a black-taped shotgun handle in plain view; Blehm later retrieved clothing and confirmed the firearm. Foley then obtained a search warrant and the camper search recovered a loaded sawed-off shotgun.
- Council was indicted for being a felon in possession and for possessing an unregistered firearm; he moved to suppress evidence, pled guilty to the felon-in-possession count reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was sentenced to 180 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Council) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest | Deputies lacked sufficient reliable information to arrest without a warrant | Deputies had corroborated, detailed witness reports, matching vehicle on property, and threats by Council | Court: Probable cause existed; officers had reasonably trustworthy information |
| Was Council in a public place voluntarily when arrest began? | Council was effectively inside his camper and/or compelled to the doorway; coercion would make arrest unlawful | Council voluntarily came to and stood in the doorway; his doorway position forfeited expectation of privacy | Court: District court’s finding that Council was at the threshold voluntarily was not clearly erroneous; he was in a public place |
| Exigent circumstances for warrantless entry and plain-view observation | Entry was unjustified; any exigency was foreseeable and officers should have obtained a warrant | Officers reasonably feared for their safety given firearm allegation, Council’s threats, resistance, and attempt to retreat behind a blanket | Court: Exigent circumstances (officer safety) justified warrantless entry; plain-view observation and subsequent warrant/search were lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (public-doorway arrest; no Fourth Amendment violation when person is at doorway)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (warrantless public-arrest doctrine)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (presumption against warrantless home entry)
- Duncan v. Storie, 869 F.2d 1100 (8th Cir. 1989) (disputed doorway location can preclude warrantless arrest)
- Mitchell v. Shearer, 729 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2013) (doorway facts could create jury question on expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Poe, 462 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2006) (exigent-circumstances standard: objective reasonable fear)
- United States v. Houle, 603 F.2d 1297 (8th Cir. 1979) (officers’ prior awareness of weapons can affect exigency analysis)
- United States v. Hill, 430 F.3d 939 (8th Cir. 2005) (violent crime and likely weapons support officer safety exigency)
- United States v. Vance, 53 F.3d 220 (8th Cir. 1995) (officer safety as exigent circumstance)
- United States v. Deanda, 73 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 1996) (public-place seizure principles reaffirmed)