I. Introduction
This case presents the question of whether police violate the Fourth Amendment when they enter and search a hotel room without a warrant based on information that a consenting-age female teenager is in the hotel room with an older man.
On August 27, 2017, officers from the Southfield Police Department ("SPD") entered Defendant's hotel room in responding to a report that a 16-year-old girl ("MV-1 [Minor Victim-1]") was in the room with Defendant, a 45-year-old man. The officers knocked on the door several times, but no one answered. Using a key provided to them by the hotel's front desk clerk, the officers entered the room. They found the Defendant and MV-1 inside and seized electronic devices containing evidence of child pornography that now forms the basis for the underlying charges in this action. Defendant moves to suppress the evidence and the government opposes the motion. For the reasons outlined below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED .
II. Background
At around 3:00 a.m. in the morning on August 27, 2016, parents of 16-year-old "MV-1" called 911 to inform officers that they received information their daughter was at the Marvin's Garden Inn in Southfield, Michigan. ("Marvin's Garden" or "the hotel"). Although MV-1 had told her parents that she would be spending the night at a friend's house, the parents told police that their daughter had posted a social media message indicating she was actually at the hotel with a 45-to-50 year old man from Indiana named "Robert." Dkt. 14, Pg. ID 32.
Four Southfield Police Officers met MV-1's parents in the hotel parking lot. Dkt. 14, Pg. ID 41; Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 62, 64. Believing MV-1 was with an unknown older man from Indiana, police officers observed an orange Chevrolet HHR that was parked in the hotel parking lot, which had an Indiana license plate. After running the license plate in their database, the officers learned that the vehicle belonged to the Defendant, Robert Donald Gordon-a white, 45-year-old male from Logansport, Indiana. Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 64. Based on that information, the officers talked to the hotel clerk and learned that Gordon had checked into room # 103 earlier that afternoon.
Using their steel batons, Officers knocked on the door for "five to ten minutes" but no one answered. Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 64; see Dkt. 14, Pg. ID 41. The officers did not knock quietly, but loudly struck the hotel room's steel front door and the room's glass window with their batons. See Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 64. They yelled "Southfield Police" and "Open the door."
Getting no answer, the officers went back to the front desk, asked for a room key, and waited for the arrival of their Sergeant. After the Sergeant arrived, they returned to the room and again used their batons to pound on the door while they announced "Police," and "Open the door" for a few minutes. When no one answered, they used the key to enter Defendant's room. The officers encountered Defendant sitting on the bed. In response to the officers' questioning, Defendant informed the officers that MV-1 was in the bathroom. Dkt. 14, Pg. ID 42. The officers found and escorted MV-1 out of Defendant's hotel room. Id.; see also Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 65. As the officers escorted MV-1 out of the room, MV-1 asked one of the officers to retrieve her boots, as she was barefoot. While kneeling down beside the bed with his flashlight, one of the officers noticed a photograph sticking out of MV-1's bag, showing her posing naked with Defendant, who was also nude.
While the officers did not arrest Defendant at that time, they did provide him with Miranda warnings. Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 65. Defendant told SPD that he wanted to "cooperate 100 percent." Id. He allegedly gave law enforcement permission to search the room and all of his belongings. Id. As a result of the search of the room, the officers seized a number of items including a pink and white Samsung phone, a black Samsung phone, a Sony video camera, an iPad tablet, and 3 photographs of MV-1 and the Defendant. Dkt. 14, Pg. ID 42. Defendant provided the passcode to his phone and admitted that the electronic devices probably had naked pictures of MV-1 that shе sent to him. Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 66. Officers took the devices and obtained a search warrant the following day. Id. As a result of the search of Defendant's devices, police found several videos of MV-1 and Defendant engaged in sexual acts. Id.
Defendant was later arrested and charged in a seven-count indictment alleging four counts of production of child pornography, one count of coercion and enticement of a minor, one count of interstate travel with the intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor, and one count of
III. Standard of Review
A. Exigent Circumstances Doctrine
The Fourth Amendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ... describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Const. amend IV. The "chief evil" against which the Fourth Amendment protects is the "physical entry of the home." Payton v. New York,
Because the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the Fourth Amendment is concerned, a search of a residence or a hotel room conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless the police can show that the search falls within one the carefully defined exceptions to the warrant requirement. See United States v. McClain ,
In general, exigent circumstances exist when " 'real immediate and serious consequences' will 'certainly occur' if a police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant." Williams ,
B. Community Caretaking Doctrine
The "community caretaking" function of police is also recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement for
The Sixth Circuit has also recognized the community caretaking exception. See Williams ,
IV. Analysis
Defendant points out that the officers had neither a warrant nor his consent to enter and search his hotel room. He argues that the officers had no reason to believe a crime was being committed in the hotel room or that any person inside the room was in danger. "Even if the officers believed the two were having consensual
The government recognizes that this case involves the warrantless entry and search of a space protected by the Fourth Amendment. Even so, the government argues that the conduct was justified under two exceptions to the warrant requirement. Moreover, even if the conduct did not fall within either exception and were found in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the government argues that the Court should not apply the exclusionary rule in this context.
A. Was the Warrantless Entry Justified Under the Exigent Circumstances Exception?
As stated above, our law recognizes an exception to the warrant requirement that permits the entry and search of a residence in response to exigent circumstances. Such exigent situations include: (1) hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect; (2) imminent destruction of evidence; (3) the need to prevent a suspeсt's escape; (4) danger to the police or to the public; and (5) the need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Memphis ,
The Supreme Court recognized the fifth exigency to the warrant requirement in Brigham City v. Stuart ,
The Supreme Court found it "plainly reasonable" for the officers to enter the house and quell the violence, for they had an "objectivеly reasonable basis for believing that the injured adult might need help and that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning."
The government also points to Michigan v. Fisher ,
In both Brigham City and Fisher , the Court found that the officers: 1) responded to a report of a disturbance, 2) encountered a tumultuous situation at the scene, and 3) observed "violent behavior inside" that appeared to create an imminent risk of harm to the subject or others. These factors supported a "straightforward application of the emergency aid exception" in both cases. See Fisher ,
Here, the government argues that the circumstances in this case, when viewed objectively, provide a reasonable basis to believe that MV-1 needed emergency assistance. According to the government, SPD was responding to a "threat of danger, and the safety of a child"-a situation that required "immediate government action." Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 70. The government highlights the fact that MV-1's parents called 911 and that the "police knew 'Robert' had taken MV-1, without parental permission, to this motel." Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 77. In its brief, the government further argues:
Particularly when [Defendant] refused to answer the door, and officers heard rustling inside, they had an even greater concern that: (1) this child was in immediate danger; (2) Defendant may be destroying any type of evidence of criminal activity; or (3) Defendant may be рlanning an escape. The last thing officers would be expected to do in this situation is walk away shrugging their shoulders because no one answered the door.
Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 77.
Unfortunately for this argument, the testimony at the suppression hearing did not corroborate the government's claims regarding the sound of rustling, or any other sounds or sights suggesting destruction of evidence, escape of the suspect, or immediate danger to MV-1. Officer Christopher Clark and Sergeant Peter Simerley-two SPD officers who responded to the hotel on the night in question-testified that they did not hear anything from inside the room when they knocked on the door. When asked by the government "when you were knocking on the door and announcing that the [SPD] were there did you hear anything inside the room?" Officer Clark testified, "No, I did not." On cross examination, Officer Clark testified that he heard "nothing whatsoever" when knocking on defendant's hotel room door for about five minutes. Similarly, Sergeant Simerley was asked on cross examination, "But with the knocking and the yelling
When questioned what evidence showed that anyone was in danger, Sergeant Simerley stated, "Well, I believe the silence, the lack of occupants not responding to our knocks at the door, for me was-at least lent potential to something may have happened in the room, yes, sir." When Officer Clark was asked to justify why he was primarily concerned with the well-being of MV-1, he responded, "Because [MV-1's] parents were deathly afraid of what could happen to her and we just-we don't know, you know. She's a juvenile with another-with an older individual that the parents don't know about and they were scared for her safety."
The government also argues that the Marvin's Garden Inn is a "seedy motel" that is "widely known to host drug activity and commercial sex trafficking activity." Dkt. 17, Pg. IDs 72, 77. Officer Clark testified that Marvin's Garden was not a nice hotel and that he had been dispatched there before for "prostitution, domestics, loud noise, loud parties, [and] evictions." Similarly, Sergeant Simerley, when asked about the kinds of calls he had answered at the hotel, responded, "Drug, prostitution, crimes of violence are the typical." The government points to these characteristics to bolster its argument that exigent circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's hotel room based on a "need to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury" according to Brigham City and its progeny.
To summarize, the government contends that the following evidence presented at the hearing is sufficient to establish exigent circumstances:
• The SPD officers were aware that Marvin's Gаrden Inn had prior reports of sex trafficking, drug trafficking, domestic disturbances, and violence.
• The officers knocked loudly, using their steel batons, in two separate attempts to get someone to open the hotel room door, but no one answered.
• The parents of MV-1 did not know for certain where MV-1 was, did not know who Robert-the 45-year-old man from Indiana-was, and were extremely concerned for their daughter's safety.
• The officers wished to conduct a "welfare check" to investigate whether MV-1 was in the room and whether she was safe.
In response to this evidence, Defendant points to the following facts in support of his position that exigent circumstances did not exist:
• The information from Snapchat did not suggest that MV-1 was being held against her will or that she was being harmed.
• The possibility that MV-1 was engaged in sexual contact with an older adult male, because she was then sixteen years old and able to consent to sexual contact under Michigan law, did not give rise to probable cause of criminal activity and is not recognized by the law as conduct as presenting a threat of serious injury.
• The officers did not see or hear anything after they knocked on the hotel room door that suggested destruction of evidence, flight, or dangerous or harmful conduct.
• The officers did not run a сriminal history check on Defendant after checking his license plates, so they had no information suggesting he had engaged in criminal conduct in the past.
The gravamen of the exigent circumstances doctrine is the need for immediate action. To invoke this exception to the warrant requirement it must be clear that "real immediate and serious consequences would certainly occur if a police officer postpones action to obtain a warrant." See Williams ,
In this case, the evidence shows that MV-1's parents and SPD had valid concerns about MV-1's well-being and legitimate desires to determine her whereabouts. But the pertinent question is whether the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that MV-1 was seriously injured, threatened with serious injury, or in immediate need of emergency assistance. Is a 16-year-old unemancipated minor female "threatened with serious injury" or "in immediate need of emergency assistance" when there is reason to believe she is in a hotel room at 3:30 in the morning with a 45-year-old man from Indiana who is unknown to her parents?
While no parent could fail to recognize and legitimately fear the potential for psychological, emotional, or even possibly physical harm these circumstances pose to a teenage daughter-even one who is just barely above the lawful age to give consent-the test the Court must apply is not whether there is a possibility of such harm but rather whether the evidence provided an objectively reasonable basis for the officers to conclude a person was seriously injured, threatened with serious injury, or in immediate need of emergency assistance. Only these imminent dangers are sufficient to permit the police to enter premises without a warrant. There is no evidence on this record of serious injury, a threat of serious injury, or an immediate need of emergency assistance. Consequently, the entry cannot be justified under the emergency aid exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.
B. Was the Warrantless Entry Justified Under the Community Caretaking Exception?
The government also argues that the community caretaking doctrine or exception justifies the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's hotel room. Highlighting that the "ultimate touchtone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness," the government argues that SPD's warrantless
i. Cady v. Dombrowski and its Progeny
In Cady , a Chicago police officer named Dombrowski crashed his car while driving in Wisconsin. Cady,
On appeal, the Supreme Court sustained the warrantless search of the trunk as a legitimate exercise of the police force's community caretaking function. The Court explained that the search was not conducted for evidence-gathering purposes, but rather for safety reasons: the car had been towed to a garage lot, leaving the gun inside accessible to vandals.
Neither before nor after Cady has the Supreme Court held that the community caretaking doctrine justifies a warrantless entry into a home. Likewise, the Sixth Circuit has explicitly declined to extend the community caretaker exception to justify a warrantless entry into, or search of, a home. See United States v. Washington,
In Williams , the defendants' landlord, after receiving an unusually high water bill, entered their rental property to check for leaks. The landlord had only inspected the kitchen of the property before the sight of leaves strewn across the floor, the smell of something suspicious, and the lack of any light or furniture convinced her to call the DEA.
Washington is similarly instructive. In Washington , a tenant in an apartment building had been arrested on drug paraphernalia charges and left his nephew in the apartment. Washington,
As alleged by the police in this case, the facts in Washington also involved an apartment building that was a dangerous environment plagued with drugs, "foot traffic and unsavory characters traveling to and from the unit," which was "frightening."
Here, the government argues:
[The] community caretaking function applies because the officers did not enter the hotel room to investigate, interview or acquire evidence. To the contrary, the overriding concern was the safety and security of MV-1. The primary purpose in entering the motel room wаs to ascertain whether MV-1 was safe, and not to gather additional evidence.
Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 71. This argument is not well taken for a number of reasons.
As an initial matter, the government advances competing reasons for the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's hotel room. On the one hand, the government argues that the entry was only to check on the well-being of MV-1 and to conduct a wellness check. On the other hand, the government argues that the officers' entry was motivated in part by their
Although no evidence was presented at the suppression hearing that showed the Defendant was destroying evidence or attempting to escape, Officer Clark did admit on cross examination that his desire to enter Defendant's room was partly motivated by a suspicion that there was something illegal happening in the room between Defendant and MV-1. Importantly, the community caretaker exception does not apply unless the officers' actions in question are "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute" or if they are taken with any traditional law enforcement purpоse. See, e.g., Cady,
Second, the government offers no authority supporting the view that the community caretaker exception applies to justify the warrantless entry into a home. As explained above, neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has ever extended the community caretaker exception beyond automobiles-except when considered together with exigent circumstances. A majority of the other circuits is in accord.
Third, Defendant argues that the circumstances officers seek to address while performing their caretaking function must present an immediate and serious harm that is certain rather than speculative. See Dkt. 18, Pg. IDs 88-89. Indeed, governing case law in the Sixth Circuit suggests that in order to avail themselves of the community caretaking exception, officers must be faced with an immediate need to act, even assuming it applies to the warrantless entry of a home (which this circuit has never held). When rejecting the application of the community caretaking exception to justify the warrantless entry and search of a home in Williams , the court focused in part on the fact that, unlike other cases where the community caretaker exception applied, the "threat" or "danger" sought to be addressed by entering the apartment was speculative rather than certain. Williams ,
ii. United States v. Rohrig
The government also relies on United States v. Rohrig ,
First, we must ask whether the Government has demonstrated a need for immediate action that would have been defeated if the ... police officers had taken the time to secure a warrant. Next, we must identify the governmental interest being served by the officers' entry into [the] home, and ask whether that interest is sufficiently important to justify a warrantless entry. Finally, we must weigh this governmental interest against Defendant's interest in maintaining the privacy of his home, and ask whether Defendant's conduct somehow diminished the reasonable expectation of privacy he would normally enjoy.
Rohrig ,
To the first prong, the Rohrig court found that the very late hour, the blasting music audible from a least a block away, and the "irate group of ... neighbors" outside demonstrated that time was of the essence.
In considering the second prong, the government interest involved, the court noted that Supreme Court precedent instructs that the weight of a government interest should be measured in part by the severity of the offense being investigated.
To the third prong, the court found that the defendant's expectation of privacy was diminished because he was "projecting loud noises into the neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning, thereby significantly disrupting his neighbors' peace."
1. Applying Rohrig's Modified Exigent Circumstances Test to These Facts
The government argues that under the modified exigent circumstances test fashioned by Rohrig , the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's room was justified. To the first prong, the immediate
Even more serious than the officers in Rohrig , SPD was responding to not a nuisance, but a threat of danger, and the safety of a child. The situation required "immediate government action"; that is, after meeting MV-1's frightened parents in the motel parking lot, verifying that "Robert" from Indiana was in room # 103, and banging on the door, only to hear rustling inside the dark room, no choice remained but to be swift in their actions.
Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 70. As discussed above, the record does not support a claim that the officers heard noises that would suggest activity of any kind inside the room. First, as stated, there was no "rustling." No evidence was presented that anyone was injured, threatened to be injured or in need of medical treatment. While the government asserts there was a "need for immediate action," the evidence demonstrated only a concern to find out whether MV-1 was in the room and what her condition was. This is not the same as a need to respond to an imminent and ongoing harm, which is what Rohrig and Washington say must be shown.
Second, the possibility that MV-1 was in the room engaging in consensual sexual activity with a 45-year-old man-however panic-inducing to her parents and concerning to law enforcement officials such a prospect may understandably be-is not a situation that the law treats as creating an objectively reasonable basis to believe that MV-1 was in danger, "subject to a threat of danger," or in immediate need of protection from harm. See United States v. Christy ,
In assessing the "need for immediate action," it is understandable how the government could argue that the "need" to lower the volume of a blaring stereo disturbing the peace of a neighborhood is less important than the need parents feel to ensure the return of their minor daughter from the hotel room of a strange older man. But the difference for purposes of applying the test in Rohrig is that the nuisance of loud noise was immediate, serious, demonstrable and ongoing, while the fears of the parents and concerns of the officers-though completely understandable-were not supported by any objectively reasonable basis that "real immediate and serious consequences would certainly occur" in the absence of immediate action. In short, it was not clear that "no choice remained but" to execute a warrantless entry into Defendant's room. Rohrig concerned an "immediate, ongoing, and highly objectionable nuisance" while here there was no proof of an ongoing injury or immediately harmful conduct. Thus, the facts of this case fail to establish the first prong of Rohrig's modified exigent circumstances test.
Regarding the second prong, whether the governmental interest at stake is sufficiently compelling to justify a warrantless entry, the government argues that SPD has an interest in "assisting parents whose minor children have gone missing with a middle aged man who is at a motel known for sex trafficking. These parents (and SPD) could not possibly know if this man was armed, dangerous, mentally ill, a sex trafficker, a drug dealer, or any host of things." Dkt. 17, Pg. IDs 70-71.
The Rohrig test also suggests that the need for a strong governmental interest (such as a serious criminal offense) diminishes "as one moves away from traditional law enforcement functions" and towards functions classified as community caretaking functions. Rohrig ,
Unlike in Rohrig , where the nuisance was ongoing and plainly evident, the circumstances confronted by the SPD did not support a reasonable conclusion that MV-1 was facing immediate harm. Because MV-1 was lawfully able to consent to sexual relations, evidence of her presence in a hotel room with a man-in and of itself-is insufficient to establish a threat of immediate harm. Even if the officers were acting solely as community caretakers, there must be a public safety concern that presents an immediate threat. No "community caretaking" function is implicated where the police seek to perform a welfare check on a minor who the officers have no articulable reason to believe is in danger or subject to illegal or illicit sexual behavior. See Christy ,
The third prong of the Rohrig test requires weighing the governmental interest against Defendant's interest in maintaining the privacy of his home, and considering whether Defendant's conduct somehow diminished the reasonable expectation of privacy he would normally enjoy.
The government suggests that because Defendant was in a hotel room rather than his residence, he was subject to a lesser degree of Fourth Amendment protection.
On the question of whether the Defendant's conduct somehow diminished the reasonableness of his expectation of privacy, the government contends that it was "certainly reasonably foreseeable that law enforcement will probably intrude on one's privacy where, as here, they knock loudly and announce their presence for close to fifteen minutes, knowing someone is likely inside with a child-without parental permission-and is refusing to answer the door." Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 71. This argument misreads Rohrig , because the question is whether the Defendant's conduct is such that it diminishes his reasonable expectation of privacy-as when one blares a sound-system at full-blast in a crowded neighborhood in the middle of the night. The question is not whether one might reasonably expect the police to bust in after they have been knocking for 15 minutes (and that person wishes not to be discovered because he may be doing something illegal). One does not engage in conduct diminishing one's reasonable expectation of privacy by failing to answer the door when the police knock and seek admittance.
In Kentucky v. King , the Supreme Court explained that when a law enforcement officer without a search warrant knocks on a door, he or she does "no more than any private citizen might do [and] whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has no obligation to open the door or to speak."
To summarize, in applying the Rohrig test, 1) there was no showing of any need for immediate action, such as any proof of harm or emergency; 2) the interest served in conducting a welfare check was not shown to be sufficiently important to overcome the presumption that a warrant is required to search a residence; and 3) the privacy interest in a residence is not outweighed by the government's interest in performing a welfare check (when there is no evidence of imminent danger) and the Defendant did nothing to diminish his expectation of privacy. The Rohrig exigent circumstances test does not justify a warrantless entry.
2. Rohrig Has Limited Application
The government's reliance on Rohrig in this case is inappropriate for two additional reasons. First, to the extent the government argues Rohrig stands for the proposition that the community caretaker exception may permit a warrantless search of a home, that argument is misplaced. Rohrig expanded the breadth of the exigent circumstances doctrine; it did not hold that the community caretaking exception applies to searches of homes.
Second, Rohrig was intended as a narrow, fact-specific holding:
We wish to emphasize the fact-specific nature of [our] holding. By this decision, we do not mean to fashion a broad 'nuisance abatement' exception to the general rule that warrantless entries into private homes are presumptively unreasonable. We simply find that, in some cases, it would serve no Fourth Amendment purpose to require police obtain a warrant before taking reasonable steps to abate an immediate, ongoing, and highly objectionable nuisance, and we conclude that this is just such a case.
Rohrig ,
The Sixth Circuit has emphasized Rohrig 's limited applicability. In Williams , the Sixth Circuit explained it was "adher[ing] tо the panel's suggestion that its decision should not be extended beyond the facts of that case" and therefore found Rohrig not to be controlling. Williams,
Rohrig involved an immediate, ongoing, and highly objectionable nuisance, while this case involves no nuisance at all. The possible water leak in this case posed no threat or nuisance to any member of the public. Rather, the agents in this case were concerned with protecting one woman while she abated potential damage to her carpet. Despite ... speculative concerns, there is no immediacy in this case.Id.
The Williams court further distinguished Rohrig , because there the court found the officers were performing a community caretaking function, while in Williams , the officers were not solely motivated by community caretaking functions.
C. May the Government Use Evidence Seized After the Officers' Illegal Entry?
Because SPD's warrantless entry into Defendant's hotel room was not justified by any of the limited exceptions to the warrant requirement, it was per se unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment. This raisеs the question of whether the evidence subsequently obtained by law enforcement must be suppressed.
The government opposes suppression on two bases. First, the government argues that even if the initial entry was illegal, Defendant's subsequent consent to a search of his hotel room and the statements he gave to the officers were acts of free will sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal entry. See Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 78. Second, the government argues that suppression is not warranted where police conduct is not deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent and that the officers' conduct here meets that standard. See Dkt. 17, Pg. IDs 81-83. The court addresses both issues below.
i. Consent
When consent is given after an illegal entry has occurred, the consent is invalid and all items seized during the search are suppressed "unless the taint of the initial entry has been dissipated before the 'consents' to search were given." United States v. Buchanan ,
A taint has been effectively dissipated if some significant intеrvening time, space, or event occurs.
Ultimately, the government bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's consent was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of the unlawful invasion. Buchanan ,
Officer Clark testified that after entering the room, he heard a noise in the bathroom and asked Defendant if anyone else was there. Defendant stated that someone was in the bathroom, and Officer Clark proceeded to the bathroom while Sergeant Simerley stood next to Gordon who was sitting on the hotel room bed. Officer Simerley testified that Gordon stated he would be 100% cooperative with the police. Simerley also testified that Defendant was continually reaching for his phone around this point in time, and that he ordered him to stop doing so.
As MV-1 was being escorted out of the hotel room by the officers, she asked Officer Clark to retrieve her boots. Officer
The officers' search yielded several electronic devices and three photographs of MV-1 and Defendant. Sergeant Simerley asked Defendant whether or not there was anything inappropriate on his phone, and Defendant responded that MV-1 had sent him naked pictures of herself. When questioned by the Court, Sergeant Simerley testified that he advised Defendant the officers were going to seize his electronic devices pursuant to an investigation. Sergeant Simerley also testified that Defendant provided the access codes to his iPhone and iPad after being asked for them by Officer Hendricks. The officers seized Gordon's electronic devices at the scene. But the items were not searched until after they obtained a warrant to do so.
The Court must determine whether a preponderance of the evidence shows that Defendant's consent to search his hotel room was an act of free will untainted by the unlawful nature of the warrantless entry. After entering Defendant's room, Sergeant Simerley stood next to Dеfendant and at one point ordered Defendant to stop reaching for his cell phone. While Sergeant Simerley spoke with Defendant, at least one officer (Clark) moved about inside the hotel room: to the bathroom to get MV-1 and beside and underneath the bed to retrieve MV-1's boots. Furthermore, Sergeant Simerley questioned Defendant about "what was going on" in the hotel room between he and MV-1. These interactions with Defendant occurred during the approximately three to five minutes between the officers' illegal entry and Defendant being Mirandized and giving consent to search his hotel room.
The Court finds that the approximately three-to-five minute period that elapsed between the officers' illegal entry and their obtaining of consent-in light of its brevity and the lack of any intervening event that could have attenuated the illegal conduct from Defendant's decision-was insufficient to dissipate the taint of the officers' unlawful entry. See, e.g., Buchanan ,
The Court likewise rejects the argument that the giving of Miranda warnings to Defendant was sufficient to dissipate the taint of the illegal entry that occurred just minutes before. The Supreme Court has held that Miranda warnings by themselves are not always sufficient to purge the taint of a Fourth Amendment violation.
ii. Were the Officers' Actions Deliberate, Reckless, or Grossly Negligent?
The government also argues that suppression is not warranted because the SPD officers' conduct was not deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent. See Dkt. 17, Pg. IDs 81-83.
The essence of the exclusionary rule is to "deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligent." United States v. Master ,
The Supreme Court has effectively created a balancing test to determine when evidence obtained by way of a Fourth Amendment violation should be excluded from use at trial. In order for a court to suppress evidence obtained in conjunction with a Fourth Amendment violation, "police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system." Herring ,
Considering the record before the Court, the officers' conduct was sufficiently deliberate. This is not a case in which officers relied in good faith on the mistake of a magistrаte or judge, see United States v. Leon,
The record also supports the conclusion that the officers' conduct is sufficiently culpable to warrant suppression. While the government relies heavily on the community caretaker doctrine, the Sixth Circuit has not found that doctrine to provide an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement in these circumstances. Moreover, the government has failed to show that any of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement for exigent circumstances justified the entry in this case. In both respects,
Upon careful review of this record, the Court concludes that the officers' conduct was deliberate enough that applying the exclusionary rule will act as a deterrent. It is difficult to say with quite as much certainty that the officers' culpability was so significant that the price paid by the justice system in excluding the evidence is worth the gain from such deterrence. The price of losing evidence of alleged child pornography manufacturing is a high one, and the officers' culpability in proceeding without a warrant is somewhat mitigated by their good intentions in seeking to assist concerned parents. However, the Court must measure that cost against the inestimable value of maintaining a society that honors the Fourth Amendment. Weighing these factors, exclusion is the proper remedy in light of the violation.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the warrantless entry into Defendant's hotel room violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the taint of that unlawful entry had not dissipated when Defendant allegedly consented the search of his hotel room. Consequently, Defendant's motion to suppress and to exclude all evidence obtained as a result of the officers' illegal search is GRANTED .
SO ORDERED.
Notes
A family member reported to the parents that MV-1 had posted information on her "Snapchat" account that she was with "Robert"-an older white man-at the motel. Snapchat is a social media messaging application, which allows users to create multimedia messages, such as a photograph or a short video, and edit that multimedia to include text captions and other effects. Users are allowed to share that multimedia, called "snaps," to a private or semi-public group of other users. The primary concept behind the application is the capturing of moments: the multimedia created by users are only available for a short time before they become inaccessible.
The Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have declined to extend the community caretaking doctrine as a justification for a warrantless home search. United States v. Pichany,
The Eleventh Circuit, in United States v. McGough,
The Third Circuit has more recently joined the approach followed by the above circuits. See Ray v. Township of Warren ,
See United States v. Quezada ,
While the parties in Washington did not appear to make the argument that the community caretaking exception can per se apply to justify a warrantless entry or search of a home, the Sixth Circuit's holding suggests that, absent some sort of exigent circumstance-of which there was none in that case-the community caretaking exception could not justify a warrantless entry or search of a home. See
As will be discussed below, Rohrig ultimately approves a warrantless search of a home under the exigent circumstances exception, rather than the community caretaking exception. However, Rohrig does reference the significance of the community caretaking function, and it is discussed by the government for that reason, so its impact will be discussed under this section.
Rohrig thus reflects the court fashioning a three-prong modified exigent circumstances test, reflecting an analysis of whether: 1) immediate government action is required, 2) the government interest at stake, if any, is sufficiently important to justify a warrantless entry, and 3) the citizen's conduct somehow diminished his or her normal reasonable expectation of privacy.
In addressing this question, it is worth considering what else the police could have done. There were several alternatives. First, they could have investigated further to determine whether the situation required immediate action. If they were dealing with a person who was "dangerous, mentally ill, a sex trafficker, a drug dealer, or any host of things," as suggested by the government, a criminal history report might have revealed that. Second, if the officers had facts suggesting evidence of a crime would be in the room, they could have attempted to obtain a warrant. (To the extent the officers believed they could not get a warrant, the entry and search becomes more questionable.) Third, the officers could have persistently continued to knock on Defendant's door until either he or MV-1 answered it. Or, they could have had MV-1's parents knock on the door, and call for her to come out. Fourth, the officers could have continued calling MV-1's cell phone, or had her parents continue to call her while positioned outside of Defendant's hotel room. The sound of a ringing cell phone would have confirmed whether MV-1 was there. Finally, the officers could have simply parked a squad car next to Defendant's car and waited for Defendant or MV-1 to exit the room. These options do not offer the visceral satisfaction and swift certainty of entering the room suddenly with the pass-key, but neither do they run afoul of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.