Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Kenneth Rush, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Kenneth Rush, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Kenneth Rush, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-4695
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:14-cr-00059-1)
Argued:
Decided:
law
enforcement
officer
knowingly
lied
to
Defendant
The
district
court
held
that
the
officers
false
to
request
that
they
remove
Defendant
from
her
staying with her for the previous two nights, was dealing drugs
from her apartment.
the
key
to
her
apartment
and
consent
form
apartment,
Higginbotham,
where
Detective
they
Keven
were
joined
Allen,
by
Detective
Detective
Tagayun,
Ryan
and
their
presence.
Detectives
Allen
and
Higginbotham
They
handcuffed Defendant, brought him into the living room, and sat
him on the couch.
J.A.
to search the apartment, even though he knew that was not true.
Sergeant Winkler testified at the suppression hearing that he
lied about having a search warrant to protect Ms. Wills.
After informing Defendant that they had a search warrant,
the officers searched the apartment and found crack cocaine and
digital
search.
scales.
Defendant
was
cooperative
throughout
the
the drugs belonged to him and that he had sold crack cocaine
from
Ms.
Willss
apartment.
Defendant
also
gave
the
police
information about the supplier who sold him the drugs and signed
Willss
apartment.
At
the
officers
request,
Defendant
questions
about
his
supplier.
After
Defendant
answered their questions, the officers again did not arrest him;
instead, they simply allowed him to leave.
Defendant
was
ultimately
arrested
and
charged
with
one
twenty-eight
grams
or
more
of
cocaine
base
in
finding
constitutional
violation,
the
district
warrant, . . .
law
enforcement
materially
impaired
to
object
when
law
enforcement
entered
the
home.
Id. at *7.
misconduct
because
there
was
vanishingly
low
Id.
Defendant
pled guilty and was sentenced to twelve months and one day in
prison, followed by three years of supervised release.
plea
agreement,
Defendant
reserved
the
right
to
In the
appeal
the
Defendant
the
government.
evidence
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
Id.
II.
Defendant
Defendant
We
agree.
The
people
Fourth
to
be
Amendment
secure
in
provides
their
that
persons,
[t]he
right
houses,
of
the
papers,
and
expressly
preclud[e]
the
use
evidence
obtained
in
doctrine
thatunder
certain
obtained
through
unconstitutional
an
circumstancesprohibits
search
from
evidence
being
used
Pa. Bd.
an unconstitutional search.
2419, 2426 (2011) (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486
(1976)).
Amendment violations.
Id.
explained:
When the police exhibit deliberate, reckless, or
grossly negligent disregard for Fourth Amendment
rights, the deterrent value of exclusion is strong and
tends to outweigh the resulting costs. But when the
police act with an objectively reasonable good-faith
belief that their conduct is lawful, or when their
conduct involves only simple, isolated negligence,
the deterrence rationale loses much of its force,
and exclusion cannot pay its way.
Davis,
131
(quoting
S.
Ct.
Herring
v.
at
242728
United
(internal
States,
555
citations
U.S.
135,
omitted)
137,
144
137.
were
incorrectly
informed
by
the
police
department
in
Id. at 13738.
Davis, 131 S.
For instance, in
and
thus
invalid.
Id.
at
903.
Although
the
search
the
was
evidence
because
objectively
the
officers
reasonable.
Id.
reliance
at
926;
on
see
the
also
the
Supreme
Court
applied
the
good-faith
even
inaccurate.
erroneous
when
the
records
were
later
found
to
information
was
part
of
database
Id. at 4.
maintained
be
The
by
rule
was
historically
designed
as
means
of
present
case
bears
no
resemblance
due
to
the
to
the
previous
intentional
decision
of
Sergeant
of
negligence,
information.
1516.
or
reasonable
This is not a
reliance
on
faulty
In
trained
illegal.
officer
would
have
known
that
the
search
was
922 n.23).
Here, there can be no doubt that a reasonable officer would
know that deliberately lying about the existence of a warrant
would
courts
violate
have
misleading
Defendants
long
the
taken
public
Fourth
about
Amendment
negative
having
rights.
view
of
law
valid
warrants.
Indeed,
enforcement
In
the
The Court
Id. at 550.
As
such, any consent given after the officer has asserted that he
possesses a warrant is not valid.
Id. at 548.
held that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment and that
the evidence should have been suppressed.
e.g., United States v. Saafir, 754 F.3d 262, 266 (4th Cir. 2014)
(A
search
or
unconstitutional
seizure
if
it
is
is
unreasonable
premised
on
and
law
therefore
enforcement
In
Id. at 667.
the
found
officers
arrived
at
the
address,
they
two
When
houses
labeled 3170 Hendricks Avenue and none with the 3171 address.
Id.
The
officers
approached
one
10
of
the
homes
(which
was
actually 3170 Hendricks Avenue) and told the woman who answered
the door that they had a warrant for this address.
Id.
The
woman then allowed the officers to search the home, which led to
the discovery of illegal drugs and the arrest of one of the
occupants.
Id.
Id. at 66970.
Id. at 670.
otherwise.
An
objectively
reasonable
officer
with
inform
objectively
the
analysis
reasonable).
of
whether
Sergeant
11
the
officers
Winklers
action
action
was
was
In
other
words,
it
is
precisely
the
type
of
suggests
was
not 2the
subjective
intent
of
the
Further, the Supreme Court has made clear that the good-
or
more
expedient
than
complying
Amendment.
with
the
Fourth
III.
Excluding the evidence obtained through a deliberate lie
on the part of law enforcement, as in this case, may well deter
police officers from so violating the Fourth Amendment in the
future.
We
emphatically
agree
with
the
Sixth
Circuits
13