United States v. Mongold
528 F. Appx. 944 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not justify a warrantless entry into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence when police have probable cause only for a non-serious crime, such as misdemeanor marijuana possession.
Facts:
- In 2010, ATF Agent Ashley Stephens investigated a drug conspiracy at Claudia Moore's residence, where he found a federal fugitive and learned Moore was a convicted felon who had sold drugs.
- In early 2012, Agent Stephens received anonymous calls from Moore's neighbors complaining about a high volume of vehicle traffic at her property.
- Following the calls, officers conducted surveillance and observed four vehicles parked in the driveway on one occasion and three cars entering and leaving during a 40-minute period on another.
- On March 6, 2012, Agent Stephens and three other officers went to Moore's home to conduct a 'knock and talk.'
- After the officers knocked and announced they were 'the police,' they heard 'scurrying' and 'loud movements' inside, followed by a short delay before the door was opened.
- Mark Mongold, who lived in the home, opened the door, and Agent Stephens immediately smelled marijuana and saw what he believed to be prison tattoos on Mongold.
- When Mongold turned to walk to the back of the house to get Moore, the officers followed him inside without permission.
- Once inside, Agent Stephens observed ammunition in a bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Mongold and Claudia Moore were charged in U.S. District Court with being felons in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
- Both defendants filed motions to suppress evidence obtained from the search of Moore's home, arguing the entry was unlawful.
- A magistrate judge conducted a hearing and issued a report and recommendation (R&R) that the motions to suppress be denied.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge's R&R and denied the defendants' motions.
- Mongold and Moore entered conditional guilty pleas, preserving their right to appeal the court's ruling on their suppression motions.
- The district court sentenced Mongold to 57 months and Moore to 38 months of imprisonment.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, challenging the denial of their suppression motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement justify a warrantless entry into a home when police smell marijuana, hear 'scurrying' sounds, and have probable cause only for misdemeanor marijuana possession, a non-serious crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
No, the exigent circumstances exception does not justify the warrantless entry. To justify a warrantless entry based on the potential destruction of evidence, the government must satisfy a four-part test, which includes a requirement that the entry be for a 'serious crime.' Here, the officers had probable cause only for misdemeanor marijuana possession, which, under Tenth Circuit precedent, is not a 'serious crime.' The evidence of high traffic and Moore's history was insufficient to establish probable cause for a more serious offense like drug trafficking. The alternative justification of officer safety also fails because there was no evidence of an immediate threat, and the officers could have ensured their safety by remaining outside the home rather than entering it. Because the initial entry was an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment, any subsequent consent to search may be tainted. The case must be remanded for the district court to determine whether the consent was sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the illegal entry.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'serious crime' requirement for the destruction-of-evidence exigency within the Tenth Circuit, specifically holding that misdemeanor marijuana possession does not qualify. It significantly limits law enforcement's ability to conduct warrantless entries of homes based on smelling marijuana and hearing ambiguous sounds, thereby reinforcing the sanctity of the home under the Fourth Amendment. The ruling also underscores the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, reminding lower courts that even voluntary consent is invalid if it is not sufficiently attenuated from a prior illegal search or seizure. This precedent makes it more difficult for prosecutors to use evidence obtained after an illegal entry, even if consent was later given.
