*1 Supreme explained The Court has appellate “may displace
our review fairly
Board’s choice between two conflict views,
ing though even court would
justifiably have made different choice
had the matter been before it de novo.” Co., Exposition Serv. Inc. v.
NLRB,
(internal omitted) quotation marks (quot Co., NLRB
ing
Mfg.
v. Walton
(1962)). uphold We must the Board’s deci
sion if the record as a whole contains
substantial support evidence to its factual Elec.,
findings. Town Country & Inc. v.
NLRB, Cir.1997). applying
Rather than appropriate
standard, acknowledging the Board’s ex-
pertise, considering both the no strike
pledge disparate treatment of striking Nichols,
employees by the majority has judgment
substituted its own for that of
the Board. The Board’s determination
that Nichols violated the Act terminat-
ing Bandy for his participation in the supported by
worker’s strike is substantial
evidence, and its order should be enforced.
I therefore dissent. America,
UNITED STATES of
Plaintiff-Appellee LONG,
Jason Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-3599.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: May 2015.
Filed: Aug. *3 Bell, Pierre, SD, argued, for
Justin L. Appellant. Koliner, AUSA, argued, Sioux
Kevin SD, Falls, Appellee. for *4 RILEY, Judge, Chief BRIGHT Before MURPHY, Judges. and Circuit RILEY, Judge. Chief to one Long (Long) pled guilty Jason with to distrib- possession count of intent in violation of 21 a controlled substance ute 841(a)(1), district court1 § after the U.S.C. evidence suppress his motion to denied Bureau of Indi- by United States obtained (BIA) searching . officers when an Affairs by Long. per- As operated once (cid:127)the store Long ap- his.plea agreement, mitted denial, maintaining the officers’ this peals Because unconstitutional. searches were court that the agree with the district we the Fourth not violate actions did officers’ Amendment, affirm.2 we
1. BACKGROUND the Lower member of Long, a Jason Tribe, the “OC operated Brule Sioux Dakota, Brule, on in Lower South Store”3 The Reservation. Lower Brule Sioux a one-time to have been appears OC Store into a convenience converted gas station The was housed novelty store. store exterior win- building with few in a metal facing park- dows; windows all of the juris- provides appellate § U.S.C. Lange, United 2. 28 A. 1.The Honorable Roberto of South for the District diction. States District Dakota, part report and rec- adopting in Mark A. Mor- the Honorable ommendation of “OC Novelties” also know as The store is eno, Magistrate Judge for the United States Boys” store. "Sioux and the old Dakota. of South District ing area are covered with grates. metal police couple announce[d] times.” soda, coffee, food, The store sold some Although he thought the store open, products, tobacco and an eclectic assort- Spargur Officer testified he did the knock ment of other merchandise addition to and announce “because of the time and me offering games arcade and movie rentals. working just as a officer not barging going just there ... gave the July at approximately
On 4:20 opportunity to someone—for someone a.m., BIA Spargur Officer Shane encoun- come to the door to answer it.” After juveniles tered three in Lower Brule who receiving no suspected response, he were Officer violating Spargur the tribe’s cur- door, Spargur juveniles opened few. Officer the main noticed the which was un- also fireworks, illegal ignite locked, had which were and after observing an individual during other than a three-day period for inside, he later Long’s learned was son he celebrating Independence Day. Officer entered the store. Spargur questioned juveniles about the Spargur then encountered anoth- fireworks, and one just “stated that he sons, Long’s er of Freedom Long, bought them down at the OC Store.” Offi- store’s concession area. proceeded cer then approximately discussed the fireworks with Freedom. two blocks to the OC Store “to make con- *5 Freedom acknowledged juveniles had tact with” Long about the sale of the fire- store, been in the but he denied the chil- works. bought dren had fireworks. Spar- Officer When Officer Spargur arrived at the gur asked Freedom to Long, retrieve who store, he was “unsure” whether it “was sleeping was in another room. Based on open or closed.” He open/ did not see an speech Freedom’s slurred and deliberate sign closed any posted nor business hours. actions, Spargur Officer believed Freedom An exterior street light in the parking lot was under the influence of some kind of light by and a flood the front door were on. drug. While Freedom fetching was Long, Spargur Officer could hear loud music Spargur Officer noticed a small package on coming from inside. Although the store that, one of the concession tables based on lit,” “fully was not pretty “[i]t was lit” well experience his and training, “recognized he such that Spargur Officer could see the package as a normally holding syn- store’s interior and At merchandise. that marijuana.” thetic Once emerged point, Spargur Officer any did not see room, from his Spargur briefly Officer dis- employees. customers or Having never him, cussed the fireworks with reminded before, been to the store Spargur Officer him not to sell fireworks Indepen- after was not sure whether these facts indicated Day, apologized him, dence for waking and the store open or closed. Officer then left the seizing store without the sus- Spargur ultimately concluded store picious package. music, because of lights, doors, juveniles’
unlocked and the report store, After leaving the Spargur Officer they “just” purchased had fireworks began preparing an affidavit to obtain there a few minutes before. search Spargur warrant. Officer spoke chief, Spargur Officer with the entered the OC Store conducted some in- through two initial doors—both of ternet research which to confirm the package he were closed but leading had to a seen was consistent with synthetic unlocked— entryway. small He then stopped marijuana, at a telephoned and then tribal door, door, third the main judge “knock[ed] Lorrie Miner. Judge approved After Miner war- approxi- her was at Judge Miner home— rant, Spargur assembled team of Officer away Officer
mately sixty miles —when and searched the OC Store. The officers “sign have her called to Spargur eighty grams synthetic officers seized Telephon- telephonically.” warrant search marijuana twenty-six packages like that in Lower not common warrants are ic Spargur. The offi- initially seen Officer only had considered -Judge Miner Brule— Chevy Blazer cers also searched for search war- telephonic requests two parking lot. The located the OC Store tenure, and Of- four-year her during rants registered Nancy Big Eagle to vehicle was only tele- this is the Spargur ficer testified Long, and it also contained and Freedom he had ever obtained. warrant phonic marijuana. Spargur Officer synthetic call, precise- so party recorded Neither interrogated placed Long under arrest unknown, but Officer ly what was said him at the station. Judge read Miner testified he 6, 2012, BIA Officer Jason August On his warrant “the meat” of affidavit and with Rae- La Mons entered the OC Store Spargur specifically application. lynn Many Her Horses Joshua to be things he read the explained Brouse, building housing the owner of the verbatim, did but Officer searched Store, investigate reported the OC he had read the war- recall whether La was familiar Officer Mons burglary. Miner. rant itself Her spoken store and had to Vicki with the hearing, suppression Long’s At first prior Long’s owner and Many Horses —the had a limited recollection Judge Miner preceding in the “many times” aunt — Spargur. with Officer her conversation La had informed Officer week. Vicki during the con- Judge Miner testified “family having a she and were Mons placed have she would versation not want” dispute,” and “she did *6 re- Although oath. she Spargur under recent break- building. Upset about her quite telephone “on the for being called ins, La Mons she wanted told Officer Vicki Spargur [giving time” and “Officer some Because of investigate. to had account as to what break-ins, a detailed sold the August her] on Vicki occurred,” Brouse, “long boy- not remem- Judge Miner could term” building to Raelynn. Spargur daughter, the war- whether Officer read friend of Vicki’s ber stated she be- Judge itself. Miner rant in- the officer Raelynn Brouse took and have had Officer lieved she would him items the store and showed side I “so I know what the warrant to her read inside, La Officer moved. Once had been further Judge Miner saying yes am to.” bearing statement Mons found witness have wanted a de- she “would elaborated bill, name, and an a hundred-dollar Long’s searching they ... what were scription of invoices— filled with shipping box they needed to search” for and where that, Brouse and Rae- according to items in- questions if the have asked she would building in the before lynn, had not been Spargur provided formation Officer collected these La Mons the break-in. probable enough support burgla- to specific suspected evidence of the items as conversation, speak At the end of the house to Long’s cause. went to ry and then entering the OC Long the warrant. approved Long. Miner with admitted him un- Store, placed La Mons approved testified she so Officer Judge Miner interrogated Long again arrest. solely on the information der warrant based the station. by Spargur provided phone. Office charged later was with drug three duct its own hearing any or view live tes suppress
offenses. filed a motion to timony. Long no legal authority cites during July the evidence obtained contention, supporting this and our well- August 6 searches and the statements precedent established calls for clear error custody he officers made to the while on See, e.g., review. United States v. Max dates, claiming both violations of the well, (8th Cir.2015) 731-33 rights Fourth Amendment and his under (reviewing the trial court’s factual findings Arizona, Miranda v. regarding suppress a motion to for clear (1966).4 1602, 16L.Ed.2d 694 error when the trial court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s report judge magistrate assigned The to the recommendation), petition case cert. excluding recommended all evidence for filed (U.S. 2015) (No. July 15-5137); obtained from the store on July United reason- Hatcher, ing Spargur’s entry initial States v. into the 690-92 curiam) (same). OC Store was mag- unconstitutional. The (per judge istrate admitting recommended evidence,
remaining including synthet- July A. 28 Search ic marijuana found in the Blazer. The Entry Initial court, district adopting magistrate’s in part, Long’s recommendation denied Long claims vio motion suppress entirety. to its lated the Fourth Amendment entering the OC Store without a warrant. The
Long conditionally pled guilty to one
Fourth Amendment protects individuals
count
possession
with
to
intent
distrib-'
“against unreasonable searches and sei
ute a controlled substance in violation of 21
by government officials,
zures” conducted
841(a)(1).
§
U.S.C.
The district court sen-
Const,
IV,
U.S.
amend.
and under certain
tenced
plus
to time served
three
circumstances, we exclude evidence ob
years of supervised
Long’s guilty
release.
strictures,
tained in violation of its
plea
see
preserved
right
his
appeal
the deni-
Davis,
States v.
al of
suppress,
his motion to
which Long
(8th Cir.2014). The critical
now does.
issue here is
[Long]
“whether
constitutionally
‘a
ha[d]
II. DISCUSSION
protected
expectation
priva
reasonable
”cy’
in the OC Store sufficient
trigger
“In an appeal from a district
*7
the Fourth
protections.
Amendment’s
court’s
Ol
denial of a motion to suppress evi
States,
dence,
170, 177,
iver v. United
466 U.S.
this court reviews factual findings
1735,
(1984)
error,
104 S.Ct.
for clear
565
intentionally exposed to all who
that were
clear error. United
for
court reviews
this
(8th
in
688,
place of business did not
frequent
548 F.3d
Perry,
v.
expectation
priva
v.
of
fringe
legitimate
United
(quoting
930,
property
Cir.
commercial
is not
McCaster,
cy.”).
When a
1999)).
public,
expecta
to the
a reasonable
open
may
of
exist. See United
privacy
tion
expectation
enjoyed some
Swart,
698,
States v.
July
on
28. See
in the OC Store
privacy
of
Cir.1982) (“[T]he
knew the busi
officers
691, 699, 107
Burger,
v.
482 U.S.
New York
closed. Commercial establish
ness was
(1987) (“The
2636,
96 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
implicit
extend an
invitation
ments do not
the Fourth
recognized long has
Court
hours or
during
to enter
non-business
unreasonable
on
prohibition
Amendment’s
prem
on the
employees
when there are no
to com
applicable
is
and seizures
searches
Seattle,
ises.”);
City
v.
387 U.S.
See
cf.
private
well as to
as
premises,
mercial
1737,
S.Ct.
warrant to be valid.” 2. Post-Warrant Search of the Store Fiorito, Id. (quoting United States v. (8th Cir.2011)). In evaluat-
Long challenges
Spar-
ing
Leon,
a search under
we “must look at
gur’s subsequent
search
the OC Store
the objectively
question
ascertainable'
claiming
telephonic
warrant did not
reasonably
whether a
well trained officer
conform with tribal and federal
law be
would have known that
the search was
cause, among
things,
other
the warrant
illegal despite
judge’s
issuance of the
itself was never read to Judge Miner and
Jackson,
warrant.”
567 v. magistrate. See United States pro- in tached involved judicial committee a tribal (9th 275, syn- 952 F.2d 279 Cir. Heffington, that criminalized legislation moting 1991) reservation. marijuana on the (refusing disqualify “to small-town thetic as a routinely also included Judge Miner merely judges on demand” because released for arrestees of release condition in rural coun “judges police and officers enter OC bond, “Defendant shall not on often more about the local crimi ties know syn- business where any other Novelties their more do] nal recidivists urban [than synthetic stimulants marijuana or thetic also, colleagues”); e.g., see United States sold, possessed.” for sale or offered are (8th 1075, 1084 Cir. Scroggins, v. was not a Judge Miner Long thus claims 2004) (declaring judge abandons her neu “ac- had magistrate because she neutral she is so involved tral role when the reso- passage for the of tively lobbied” “essen issuance of a search warrant she marijuana and outlawing synthetic lution robe”). tially officer becom[es] that “the determination already had made “wholly Judge also asserts Miner drugs.” selling synthetic the OC Store judicial by failing to abandoned her role” judge explained have that We full Spargur read her the text have Officer she “does judicial her role when abandons Assuming the of the search warrant. war actor, a neutral and detached not serve as read, rant this failure does not was not for the stamp a ‘rubber as but rather Miner “acted as a suggest Judge rubber adjunct ‘an law enforcement police’ and stamp” ” for law enforcement. United Carpenter, 341 States v. officer.’ United (8th Decker, F.2d States v. Leon, (quoting F.3d Cir.1992) (affirming the lower court’s con 3405). Judge at S.Ct. 468 U.S. judicial abandoned his judge clusion that a on length about her role Miner testified at judge did not read role because prior her committee and judicial “failed to note both that warrant and the OC Store. knowledge of and signed the warrant prosecutor had not testimony, the court on this district Based property that the warrant did not list was not a strident Judge Miner concluded omitted)). (footnote Here, to be seized” marijuana prosecu synthetic proponent Judge ap Miner Spargur read Long. The tion, against nor was she biased of which portions plication Judge credited Miner’s court also district affidavit — the warrant itself—and reproduced are warrant finding “she issued the testimony, would have testified she Judge Miner in the information contained solely on the if the informa questioned notion preconceived not on a affidavit not disturb was not sufficient. Long’s guilt,” provided and we will tion he finding. credibility Judge See United that Miner was dispute does not Robbins, Cir. information enough establish given “ 2012) ‘credibility findings are (explaining search, nor does he con probable cause ” (quot appeal unreviewable’ on well-nigh or Officer acted Judge tend Miner Jones, ing circumstances, these in bad faith. Under Cir.2001))). Spargur read any failure to have Officer was not a of the warrant the full text court agree with district further We ju Miner’s neutral departure from in- knowledge of and Judge Miner’s Leon, dicial role. See community is tribal volvement the small (“[T]he exclusionary rule de S.Ct. 3405 conduct that constitutes type rather police misconduct signed to deter a neutral and de- abandoning her role as *10 568 (8th Cir.2014). judges
than the errors of punish to 739 F.3d Long magistrates.”). Blazer, admits he did not own the Long provided has no evidence suggesting Finally, Long good-faith asserts Leon’s any he had constitutionally protected con- exception apply pro does not because the See, nection to the vehicle or its contents. cedure to used obtain the warrant was so e.g., United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d deficient no reasonable officer would have (8th Cir.2010) (deciding a defen- relied on the warrant. dant who “neither owned nor drove the Judge application read Miner the and “the only [searched and was an vehicle] occa- verbatim, giving meat” of the affidavit sional passenger therein” could not chal- Judge enough Miner information to estab vehicle). lenge the search of the probable search, lish cause and at the thus has shown no expectation reasonable long end of the conversation Miner privacy of in the Blazer and cannot now approved the warrant. contest the search of the vehicle. See id. in believing was reasonable the warrant But Stonerook, proposes the officers was valid. See violated United States v. (8th his Cir.2005) expectation privacy reasonable of Fed.Appx. 983-84 curiam) searching the Blazer because the (unpublished per vehicle (affirming the parked in what he describes denial of a motion to as his suppress evidence curtilage. business’s We are not convinced. through telephonic obtained warrant and Reed, Cf United States v. rejecting the defendant’s claim “that no . F.2d (concluding reasonable officer could have relied defendant had no good expectation faith on the reasonable validity of search [a] privacy “open back parking warrant” issued in lot” of violation of state “law business). his regarding telephonic warrants”); search Hessman, United authority cites no for proposi- (8th Cir.2004) 1018, 1022-23 (applying the tion that a business owner has a reason- good-faith exception technically to a defi expectation able privacy in all the vehi- fax); by cient warrant obtained United parked cles in his public store’s parking Richardson, Thus, lot. Long had no expec- reasonable 550-51 (refusing to suppress tation of privacy in the Blazer and cannot pursuant evidence telephonic obtained to a challenge its search.
warrant that had not met require all ments). August B. 6 Search Long further claims the Au
3. Post-Warrant Search of Blazer gust 6 search of the OC Store and the Long also challenges the offi seizure of Long’s property found there cers’ search of the parked Blazer in the violated the Fourth Amendment. Although public OC parking Store’s lot. “Fourth Officer La Mons searched the store with rights personal Amendment are rights warrant, out a the district court concluded may not be vicariously.” asserted this search was constitutional because States v. Barragan, Brouse, owner, property’s consented to Cir.2004). “To mount a successful motion search, the search. “Consent to a valid suppress, an accused exception must first estab to the [Fourth Amendment’s] personally lish that he legitimate has a warrant requirement, may given be either expectation privacy object by suspect some other person was searched.” Stringer, United States v. over, who has common authority or suffi- *11 al, shipping of the the search and seizure to, to be the item relationship cient James, the Fourth Amendment be- v. 353 box violated United States searched.” Cir.2003) (internal (8th specific cita had La Mons 606, cause “Officer 613 F.3d “ omitted). party personal property third consent the be- knowledge ‘Valid that tion party’s third inventory belonged the through either ing can arise searched party’s appar third authority or the Although La Mons knew Long.” actual to ” States v. Chavez authority.’ United Long, ent Brouse belonged the box to (8th 546, 554 Loya, 528 F.3d La Mons the box Raelynn told Officer Andrus, 483 v. break-in, (quoting United the mak- not in the store before F.3d 1162 modified, 499 F.3d evidence of the sus- ing possible the box Cir.2007)). had [Brouse] “[W]hether La Mons rea- pected burglary. Officer authority question consent is to actual the as evidence of sonably seized box James, The dis F.3d at 613. 353 fact.” burglary.7 suspected “Long ap concluded because trict court when longer a tenant” was no
parently III. CONCLUSION August building on the purchased Brouse affirm. We had building as owner of “Brouse authority permit to ... actual BRIGHT, concurring in Judge, Circuit Fernan entry Mons’s and search.” La Cf. dissenting part. part, U.S. -, -, 134 571 California, v. dez majority’s to the respect I concur with (2014)(“It 1126, 1132, 188 L.Ed.2d 5.Ct. holding regarding search indeed, absurd— be would unreasonable — 6, 2012 August Blazer and the Chevrolet to a war obtain require police to officers IBut dissent of the OC search Store. of a occupant or when the sole owner rant majority’s conclusion respect to the with to voluntarily -consents apartment or house of the OC Store on entry that the initial search.”). finding of court’s The district Fourth did violate July not the. clearly authority to consent was actual Amendment. at 1068. Douglas, See erroneous. to United The Fourth Amendment a line of cases ex counters with provides: States Constitution a leased search officers cannot plaining land only the consent of the with premises secure in to be right people of the The See, e.g., lord, tenant. not that of the houses, ef- papers, and persons, their States, Chapman fects, searches and against unreasonable (1961). 776, 5 L.Ed.2d violated, and seizures, be no shall not help Long does not that line of cases But issue, probable upon but shall Warrants court, because, noted the district affirmation, as or cause, by Oath supported a lease he had no Long presented evidence place describing to particularly occupy to or use entitled or was otherwise searched, things persons be August 6. on premises seized. be Const, Fourth The amend. IV. if the U.S. even Long further contends “fundamentally protects Amendment August 6 was constitution- entry on initial Long's subsequent state tionally permissible, post-Miranda state also seeks have suppressed as fruit of the suppressed be be "need not he made to the ments ments Webster, product what he con they were the poisonous cause tree.” United Cir.2010). we find illegal Because to be searches. siders August constitu July 6 searches 28 and person from unreasonable searches.” force and probably more [was] true and McMullin, United States v. accurate.” Id. (8th Cir.2009). presented The facts suppression hearing plainly meet the preponderance of “To establish a Fourth Amendment vio the evidence showing standard8 it lation, a defendant must show that he had *12 was probably “more true and accurate” expectation reasonable privacy of the and, that the OC Store was closed there- area searched.” United States v. Mar fore, Long subjective9 had a expectation of (8th 604, Cir.2010). quez, 605 F.3d 609 privacy. particular, In the record shows: bears burden of establishing Officer arrived at the OC Store at subjective expectation “both a privacy of a.m.; approximately 4:30 only exterior expectation and that the objectively rea lights illuminated around the building were sonable.” United v. Perry, 548 light street and a light flood for a securi- (8th 688, F.3d 691 (quoting Unit camera; ty there an electric “Open” was McCaster, 930, ed States v. 193 F.3d 933 sign another part of the building which (8th Cir.1999)) (internal quotation marks illuminated; was not Officer Spargur testi- omitted). The placed upon burden Long fied. that pulled as he parking into the lot
is, most, at preponderance of the evidence. there was no indication the “business [was] Matlock, 164, United States v. 415 U.S. open to the public”; all of the doors were 14, 988, 177-78 n. L.Ed.2d closed, unlocked; but “most of lights (1974) (“[T]he controlling proof burden of off’; [inside OC Store] were Officer suppression hearings impose should no Spargur did not see customers or employ- greater burden than proof by preponder Store; and, ees inside the OC because he evidence.”). ance of the “Preponderance was unsure of whether the OC Store was of the evidence greater weight means open, knocked to an- States, of evidence.” Smith v. United 726 nounce his presence and received no an- 428, Cir.1984) (internal quo swer. In light of facts, these established omitted). tation marks To meet this stan the conclusion by pre- follows a clear dard, Long required was to show that ponderance of the evidence the OC Store weighed “when with op [the evidence] Thus, was closed. the district court clear- it, posed [evidence favor of Long’s ly erred in finding Long failed to meet expectation privacy of convincing had] preponderance of the evidence standard. majority points 208-TC, The 8. Long "present- 4403965, (D.Utah out 2011 WL at *7 ed suppression no evidence” hearing. at the 21, 2011) Sept. (“[T]he fact that the two De party But a prepon- does not to meet fail testify fendants did not necessarily is not dis- derance of the simply evidence standard be- positive of the issue” of whether Defendants provide cause he or she does not the best met their standing burden to establish to chal See, e.g., evidence on an issue. United States search). lenge a Diaz, (8th Cir.1982) v. 685 F.2d (holding government’s showing of consent If subjective expectation satisfies the fatally was not flawed its failure to call an privacy of by showing standard the OC Store informant as a witness because a offi- closed, objective meets the standard consent); cer regarding testified United States because, held, Supreme as the Court has Soto, v. 988 F.2d "portions premises of commercial which are (holding suppression the record at the hear- public may not to the only compelled be ing was sufficient standing to confer to chal- ... within the proce framework of a warrant lenge though a search even the defendant did Seattle, City dure.” See v. 387 U.S. testify not regarding ownership of of the vehi- (1967). S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 943 cle); Hageman, United States v. No. 2:11-CR- (internal marks omit that, quotation original) even if asserts government The ted)). pri of expectation a reasonable Long had Store, good-faith the Leon the OC
vacy in Further, Spargur’s conduct question The ultimate applies. exception “clearly illegal” Long possessed because “had an an officer Leon is whether under privacy his business expectation an to believe basis objectively reasonable public. it closed to the See when was [applicable law] with complying was] [s/he Seattle, 541, 545, 87 S.Ct. City United Fourth Amendment.” and the (1967) (“[Portions 18 L.Ed.2d Moore, 843, 848 open to premises which are not commercial Cir.1992). con pre-warrant If an officer’s only compelled be with public may good- the Leon “clearly illegal,” duct is framework, proce in the of warrant exception apply. does faith O’Neal, dure.”); at 242-43 n. 6 *13 O’Neal, 239, 242-43 n. 6 v. pre-warrant that if conduct (holding Cir.1994). exception “clearly good-faith the illegal” case, I judge in this magistrate un the and “evidence Like does not obtained apply of a situation to think ex pressed resulting am “hard warrant should be der the likely cluded”). more to ree- society would be application where permit To more officer police would instance ognize[ exception this good-faith Leon —-and expectation owner’s easily business purpose ]a of the exclu would undermine see— 15). (Appellant’s Addendum privacy.” sionary police deter rule—“to misconduct.” he Spargur, when O’Neal, Officer (quoting As admitted at 243 n. 6 Unit nothing Leon, exter- the OC Store approached ed States (internal (1984)) to open business nally was indicated L.Ed.2d 677 S.Ct. omitted). Spargur also admitted public. Officer marks quotation investigate spite continued to that he —in Thus, unwarranted search because externally appearing OC Store of the Fourth violated the of the OC Store and, unsure he was because closed'— salvaged by and is not Amendment felt obli- open, the business whether I exception, dissent good-faith Leon to knock and announce. gated erred that the district court would rule the initial search and account of Spargur’s suppress all it failed to evidence when appearance response his actions July as a result of obtained are not consistent with of the OC Store entry including all evidence collect- initial — the OC Store was belief good faith July 2012 search warrant. ed under Thus, these under public. to the above, facts, highlighted as others as well good faith could not entry into the OC Store
believe See, e.g.,
permissible.
Conner, exception did
(holding good-faith the Leon by police salvage entry warrantless
because, under the facts known entry, could “[n]o of the officer
the time that the defendants
good believe faith physical to the officers’ visual
consented (alteration in room” to the motel
access