United States v. Rodriguez, No. 15-2723 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with possession of a machinegun and unlawful possession of an assault rifle. The government appealed the district court's suppression of evidence gained after police entered defendant's residence without a warrant. The court concluded that suppression based on the officers’ warrantless entry was improper. In this case, the body-camera video shows that, based on defendant's behavior, the officers’ belief he consented to their entry was objectively reasonable. Although defendant did not affirmatively express consent to the officers’ entry, he also did not try to close the front door, or protest when the officers followed him into the house. Moreover, when an officer asked if he could step into the house to talk with defendant, defendant immediately opened the screen door wider with one hand, and walked inside with his back to the officers. Therefore, the court concluded that an objectively reasonable officer could interpret that series of actions as an invitation to enter. The court also concluded that the Leon good faith exception does not apply in this case where the officers' conduct - a protective sweep in the absence of an arrest or reasonable suspicion of dangerous individuals - was clearly illegal; and the court remanded to the district court to determine whether the independent source doctrine applies.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Loken, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court erred in suppressing a firearm found during a warrantless search of defendant's home on the ground defendant did not consent to the search as an officer acting with objective good faith could reasonably believe that defendant had impliedly invited the officers into the home by opening the door wider and stepping back into the house; however, the protective sweep the officers conducted was done in the absence of an arrest or reasonable suspicion that dangerous persons might be present and was illegal; on remand, the district court should determine whether the independent source doctrine applies.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.