United States v. Yarbrough
4:17-cr-00131
N.D. Ala.Jan 8, 2018Background
- Investigators went to Yarbrough's residence to serve arrest warrants (related to drug offenses) after anonymous tips reporting "lots of traffic."
- On arrival officers handcuffed three men outside (including Yarbrough); Investigator Monroy then announced at the house and saw Mrs. Yarbrough run into a bathroom, arrested her, and removed her from the home.
- Investigator Monroy reentered the house briefly and conducted a one-minute protective sweep, during which he saw and seized two shotguns from the master bedroom.
- After the sweep the officers displayed the shotguns in plain view, detained the Yarbroughs, and later obtained written consent (about 44 minutes later) to search the home, leading to seizure of an Altoids tin and drug-related items.
- Yarbrough moved to suppress the shotguns (as seized in the protective sweep), his post-arrest statement admitting ownership of the guns, and evidence seized after the consent search; the magistrate recommended denying suppression, but the district court rejected that recommendation and granted suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless protective sweep was justified | Sweep was proper because officers had indications (vehicles, tips, fleeing, warrants) suggesting others might be inside and dangerous | Sweep lacked individualized, reasonable suspicion; anonymous tips were unverified and investigators had no specific facts of another dangerous person | Court: Protective sweep unconstitutional; Government failed to prove officer had reasonable belief someone dangerous was in the house; shotguns suppressed |
| Whether Yarbrough's post-sweep statement should be admitted | Statement independent or not fruit of illegal sweep | Statement was induced/tainted by display of unlawfully seized shotguns (fruit of poisonous tree) | Court: Statement suppressed as fruit of illegal seizure |
| Whether subsequent written consent cured the illegality and validated the second search | Consent was voluntary and purged the taint of the earlier unlawful sweep | Consent was the product of the illegal seizure (temporal proximity, display of guns, coercive atmosphere) | Court: Consent was tainted; evidence seized in second search suppressed |
| Credibility/timing disputes about when sweep occurred and officers' intent | Officers credible; sweep for officer safety and occurred before certain dispatch calls | Timing and dispatch record undercut officer timeline; officers lacked time/specific facts for reasonable belief | Court: Sustained some timing objections; accepted officers acted for safety but found insufficient specific facts to justify sweep |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective-sweep standard requires reasonable, individualized suspicion)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (home entries presumptively unreasonable without warrant)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (anonymous tips lacking indicia of reliability do not justify stops/searches)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop-and-frisk requires specific, articulable facts)
- United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331 (Eleventh Circuit discussing anonymous reports and exigency)
- United States v. Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297 (consent after illegal seizure may be tainted; factors for attenuation)
- United States v. Hollis, 780 F.3d 1064 (Eleventh Circuit upholding protective sweep in a drug-house context)
- United States v. Williams, 871 F.3d 1197 (Eleventh Circuit upholding sweep where multiple corroborating facts existed)