United States v. Ackerman, No. 23-1298 (8th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Darren J. Ackerman’s motion to suppress evidence of firearms discovered in his basement. The police had entered his home on the information that Ackerman had tried to choke his girlfriend, was possibly on drugs, and might be holding their infant daughter hostage. They found him at the bottom of the basement stairs, holding his daughter, and upon arresting and handcuffing him, they performed a protective sweep of the basement, during which they found firearms in a room adjoining the area of his arrest.

Ackerman argued that the search was not a valid protective sweep as the rooms searched did not adjoin the place of his arrest. The court, however, determined that the arrest occurred at the bottom of the stairs, where Ackerman first submitted to the officers' authority. The court concluded that the room where the firearms were found immediately adjoined the area at the bottom of the stairs, and thus, the protective sweep complied with the Fourth Amendment.

The court followed the "protective sweep" exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows officers to conduct a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. The court used the two-prong test from the Supreme Court case Maryland v. Buie to determine the constitutionality of the protective sweep. The first prong allows officers to look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from where an attack could be launched, and the second prong allows officers to search areas where they believe a danger may be present based on articulable facts.

Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Shepherd and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The search of a room of his house adjacent to the space where defendant was arrested was a valid protective search.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1298 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Darren James Ackerman Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Eastern ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2023 Filed: December 8, 2023 ____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. The district court 1 denied Darren J. Ackerman’s motion to suppress evidence of firearms discovered in his basement. Reserving the right to appeal, he pled guilty 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. to Possession of Firearms by a Prohibited Person under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, this court affirms. Police learned that Ackerman tried to “choke out” his girlfriend, was probably on drugs, and possibly holding their infant daughter hostage at his home. Entering the home, officers found Ackerman standing at the bottom of the stairs to the basement, holding his daughter. Ordered at gunpoint to come up the stairs, he complied. Police searched and handcuffed him. Two officers entered the basement to perform a protective sweep. They saw the butt of a gun sticking out of the open door to a “canning room,” which was visible from the bottom of the stairs. Looking into the room, they saw two firearms. Officers also found drug paraphernalia in an open room at the base of the staircase. Based partly on the firearms (and partly on drugs found on Ackerman’s person), the officers obtained a search warrant. With it, they discovered more firearms. Ackerman argues that the search was not a valid protective sweep because the searched rooms did not adjoin the place of his arrest. “‘In an appeal from a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews factual findings for clear error, and questions of constitutional law de novo.’” United States v. Gordon, 741 F.3d 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2013), quoting United States v. Hollins, 685 F.3d 703, 705 (8th Cir. 2012). “‘We review the district court’s conclusion that a protective sweep was justified de novo.’” United States v. Alatorre, 863 F.3d 810, 813 (8th Cir. 2017), quoting United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2005). Under the “protective sweep” exception to the Fourth Amendment, officers may conduct “a quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” United States v. Waters, 883 F.3d 1022, 1026 (8th Cir. 2018), quoting Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990). “In Buie the Supreme Court established a two-prong test for determining whether a protective sweep incident to an arrest was constitutionally permissible.” Waldner, 425 F.3d at 517. “[A]s an incident to the arrest the officers could, as a -2- precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 334. Officers may also search areas where “articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Id. In the Buie case, the Supreme Court denied suppressing evidence, due to the protective sweep exception. Id. at 337. Officers there discovered evidence while searching a basement after the defendant surrendered at the bottom of the basement stairs, “emerged from the basement,” and was searched and handcuffed on the first floor. Id. at 328. The facts here are nearly identical. The district court found that Ackerman surrendered and was arrested at the bottom of the basement stairs, walked up the stairs, and was searched and handcuffed at the top of the stairs. The officers then entered the basement, discovering firearms in a room immediately adjoining the area at the bottom of the stairs. These findings are not clearly erroneous. The district court properly concluded that the arrest occurred at the bottom of the stairs, where Ackerman first submitted to their authority. See United States v. Flores-Lagonas, 993 F.3d 550, 559 (8th Cir. 2021) (“A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs ‘when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.’”), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968); California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991) (an arrest occurs where there is “either physical force … or, where that is absent, submission to the assertion of authority.”). The room with the firearms immediately adjoined the area at the bottom of the stairs. The protective sweep complied with the Fourth Amendment. -3- ******* The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -4-

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.