886 F.3d 1318
11th Cir.2018Background
- Police received a tip that a person nicknamed “Papa D” kept drugs and firearms at the back unit of a duplex at 132 NE 64th St.; surveillance followed and officers stopped two men who returned toward the duplex.
- Multiple officers converged on the duplex; several officers entered the fenced yard, approached the back unit’s metal security gate and wooden door; Detective Ogden knocked and Mr. Maxi opened the wooden door shortly thereafter.
- Detective Ogden observed crack rocks and packaged drugs in plain view; officers forced open the metal gate, arrested Mr. Maxi, performed a short protective sweep, then later obtained and executed a search warrant that yielded drugs, firearms, and papers.
- The FBI conducted pen registers, a wiretap on Espere Pierre’s phone, and later wiretaps on Markentz Blanc’s and others’ phones as part of a broader drug-trafficking investigation; Blanc was encountered fleeing on two occasions.
- Maxi moved to suppress physical evidence and statements from the 64th Street entry; a magistrate and the district court denied suppression and Maxi appealed. Blanc moved to suppress wiretap evidence and objected to a jury flight instruction; the district court denied suppression and gave the instruction; Blanc appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both convictions, rejecting Maxi’s suppression claims (standing, curtilage/knock-and-talk, voluntariness of door opening, warrantless arrest, independent-source doctrine for the warrant, and post-arrest statements) and rejecting Blanc’s challenges to wiretap necessity/omissions and to the flight instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge search (Maxi) | Maxi: he lived/paid rent at the duplex; had expectation of privacy. | Government: he was present only for commercial drug activity or disclaimed residency. | Held: Maxi had standing (subtenant-like presence; paid rent, had key/papers). |
| Entry onto curtilage / knock-and-talk (Maxi) | Maxi: ~10 officers, tactical positions, guns drawn—exceeded knock-and-talk; curtilage intrusion. | Government: officers were conducting a permissible knock-and-talk. | Held: Officers exceeded customary knock-and-talk (no license for armed tactical entry), but exclusion not required because the violation did not produce the contested evidence (Hudson/independent causation). |
| Suppression of evidence from inside unit (Maxi) — protective sweep/walk-through and arrest | Maxi: protective sweep and warrantless walk-through were unlawful; arrest without warrant invalid. | Government: drugs were in plain view when door opened, probable cause and exigent circumstances justified arrest; independent source supports warrant. | Held: Arrest supported by probable cause and exigency; plain view provided probable cause to seek warrant; independent-source doctrine makes seized evidence admissible. |
| Wiretap necessity and affidavit omissions (Blanc) | Blanc: government failed to exhaust less intrusive means and omitted material facts (role of confidential informant). | Government: affidavit showed other techniques tried/considered and explained why they were unlikely to succeed; omissions were not intentional/reckless or material. | Held: District Court did not clearly err — necessity satisfied and alleged omissions/false statements did not invalidate wiretaps. |
| Flight jury instruction (Blanc) | Blanc: instruction improper and prejudicial. | Government: flight evidence from two incidents supports consciousness-of-guilt inference. | Held: Instruction proper; sufficient evidence of flight and no reasonable likelihood of prejudice to substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (Sup. Ct. 1961) (home and curtilage receive strong Fourth Amendment protection)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (limits on implied license for knock-and-talk; no invitation to conduct searches on curtilage)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (exclusionary-rule remedy distinct from Fourth Amendment violation inquiry)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (knock-and-announce violation does not always require exclusion where violation did not cause obtaining of evidence)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (independent source doctrine permits admission of evidence discovered independently of constitutional violation)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (standing requires a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (overnight guest has expectation of privacy)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (short-term commercial presence does not confer residential privacy interest)
- United States v. Green, 40 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1994) (wiretap necessity standard and when surveillance is required)
- United States v. Jackson, 120 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for suppression rulings)