Frankie Joe Little was accused of taking sexually explicit photos of a minor. When police arrived at his mother's house to request his presence at the police station, Little went inside and an officer followed him inside where the officer seized Little's phone. The Sixth Circuit held that Little's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the officer entered without seeking permission.
On October 21, 2007, I.W., a fourteen-year-old girl, and her legal guardian entered the Lexington, Tenn. police department. They spoke with Lieutenant Michael Harper and indicated that Little had taken several sexually explicit photographs of I.W. while she was nude on his bed.
While speaking with Harper, I.W. sent a text message to Little requesting that he send the pictures to her so she could show a friend. Little replied he had already deleted the photos.
Later, Harper, who knew Little, sought out Little at his home, but he was not there. Harper then found Little at his mother's home. While outside the home, Harper informed Little that another officer, Detective Kizer, would like to speak with him at the police department. Little explained that he would speak to Kizer, but he preferred to drive himself to the police department if possible. Harper said that was acceptable and that he would follow Little to the station. Little also asked if he could put on a shirt before leaving. Harper replied that he could.
Little entered the house to get a shirt and Harper entered behind him without invitation or asking permission to enter. Little did not voice an objection. While inside, Little's cell phone rang and Harper directed him not to answer and for Little to hand the phone over to Harper. Harper did not inform Little of his Miranda rights before the seizure or inform him that he had a right to keep his phone. Little relinquished the phone.
Little then drove himself to the police station while Harper followed. Kizer asked Little to access photos of I.W. on his phone. Little did so, revealing four sexually explicit photos of I.W. which were similar to the ones I.W had described at the police station.
Little was arrested and charged with the sexual exploitation of a minor. At trial, Little moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that Harper had unlawfully entered the home and that Little's phone was illegally seized. The suppression motion was denied. Little entered a guilty plea but appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On appeal, Little maintained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Harper entered the house without permission.
The court of appeals overturned the denial of the suppression motion. The court of appeals noted that "[s]everal factors support [the district court's] finding that defendant impliedly consented to Officer Harper's entry into the house: 1) he knew the officer; 2) he was cooperative throughout the encounter; 3) he raised no objection when Harper followed him inside, and 4) the intrusion was limited in scope. Had Harper asked for permission to enter and had defendant behaved in the same manner, we would have no difficulty affirming the district court's finding of implied consent." However, "Harper neglected to do so and logic dictates that a person cannot consent to a request that has not been made - particularly in light of the fact that the government bears the burden of showing that consent was given voluntarily."
The court of appeals further explained that "Harper had two alternative ways that he could enter the residence in compliance with the Fourth Amendment: obtain a search warrant or request and obtain consent from defendant. He did neither and therefore his entry violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence acquired as a result of that unlawful entry- defendant's cell phone and his subsequent written statements based upon possession of the cell phone - must be suppressed."
The case is United States v. Little. Click here to read the full case.
No comments:
Post a Comment