USA v. Robert Dale Holloway - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$S:\Susan\Dispos\2013\Armstrong Memo 11-1554 and ... - U.S. Courts$

Following his arrest, Appellant was indicted by a federal grand jury for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 2 The firearm at issue was the model 870 Remington shotgun discovered by Officer Bernard at Appellant’s residence on August 4, 1999. Claiming the search of his home violated the Fourth Amendment, Appellant moved the district court to suppress the firearm and any other evidence seized by Officer Bernard. Appellant’s motion to suppress was denied. Thereafter, Appellant pled guilty, preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. This appeal followed. 3 2 Appellant was convicted of first degree assault on August 11, 1983. 3 In addition to appealing the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and other evidence seized by Officer Bernard, Appellant also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to Officer Bernard concerning the events of August 4, 1999. He argues these statements were made in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966). Having considered Appellant’s arguments as to this issue in light of the record, we affirm without discussion the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements. See 11th Cir. R. 36-1. 6
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Review of a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Alexander, 835 F.2d 1406, 1408 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, whereas its application of the law is subject to de novo review. Id. In reviewing the district court’s ruling, this Court must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, which, in this case, is the Government. United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1254 (11th Cir. 1990). III. DISCUSSION This case presents an issue of first impression to this Circuit concerning whether law enforcement officials may conduct a warrantless search of a private residence in response to an emergency situation reported by an anonymous 911 caller. We conclude that when exigent circumstances demand an immediate response, particularly where there is danger to human life, protection of the public becomes paramount and can justify a limited, warrantless intrusion into the home. Once in the home, officers may seize any evidence found within plain view. A. Warrantless Search of Appellant’s Residence The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States sets forth a general proscription on warrantless searches of a person’s home: “The right of the 7
Page 1 and 2: [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COUR
Page 3 and 4: Upon arrival, Officer Bernard pulle
Page 5: Officer Bernard locked the weapon i
Page 9 and 10: U.S. 10, 14-15, 68 S. Ct. 367, 369
Page 11 and 12: to his knocks, the undercover offic
Page 13 and 14: trousers of the type the robber was
Page 15 and 16: searches in such situations is cons
Page 17 and 18: Davidson, 133 F.3d 189, 196-97 (2d
Page 19 and 20: The facts of this case do not requi
Page 21 and 22: to remain anonymous may very well h
Page 23 and 24: protection of his own safety); Mich

USA v. Robert Dale Holloway - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?