United States v. Brandwein, No. 14-1502 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseA shed on the Brandweins’ leased property caught fire. Neighbors called for assistance and knocked on the door of the residence, but received no response. Concerned that a truck parked near the shed would catch fire, a neighbor moved it, using keys he found in its ignition. The neighbor noticed a loaded rifle on the ground nearby. Officers arrived. Informed that all of the Brandweins’ vehicles were present, officers knocked loudly several times, and became concerned that there may be injured persons inside the home. They used keys from the truck to enter the house, where they saw drug paraphernalia and firearms in plain view. Officers continued to announce their presence. Brandwein emerged from the bedroom, fully dressed, sweating profusely, and apparently disoriented. Brandwein’s wife returned. An officer noticed large glass jars containing what he believed to be methamphetamine, informed the wife that he was going to secure the residence and apply for a search warrant. The district court found that she consented to a search, but returned to the kitchen, and cleaned the jars. Brandwein, charged with the unlawful possession of six firearms as a previously convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1); 924(a)(2), and attempted manufacturing of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C),; 846, unsuccessfully moved to suppress all evidence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial and his firearms conviction. He was acquitted on the drug charge.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Beam and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Assuming for the sake of analysis that the circumstances fell short of supplying the officers with reasonable belief of an emergency justifying entrance into defendant's home, the district court did not err in finding that defendant's wife later consented voluntarily to a search of the residence and her consent was sufficient to purge any taint of an unlawful entrance. Judge Kelly, concurring.
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.