FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 22, 2010
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 09-5131
LUCAS GREGORY FOX,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(D.C. No. 4:09-CR-00038-TCK-1)
Stephen J. Greubel, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal
Public Defender, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.
Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, (Thomas Scott Woodward,
Acting United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, SEYMOUR, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Lucas Gregory Fox entered a conditional guilty plea
to one count of possession of an unregistered shotgun with a barrel less than 18
inches long, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845(a), 5861(d), and 5871. Law
enforcement officers found the firearm in Fox’s home after his wife consented to
the search. Fox appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing
that his wife’s consent to search the home was invalid. We exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I
At approximately 9:45 p.m. on February 4, 2009, Officers Dupler, Jenkins,
Lamb, and Osterdyk of the Tulsa Police Department were in plain clothes and
unmarked cars, conducting surveillance on Fox’s home in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Officer Dupler had received information from a confidential informant that Fox
was driving a stolen silver Jeep Wrangler and that he might have drugs with him.
Officer Dupler also learned that Fox was wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant.
While the officers were observing Fox’s house, they saw a black Ford Mustang
park near the house and a woman (later identified as Shawna Chiles) get out of
the Mustang and enter the house. Approximately thirty minutes later, Ms. Chiles
left the house, got back in her car, and drove away. Two officers, Officers Lamb
and Osterdyk, followed the black Mustang in their unmarked police car.
Shortly after Officers Lamb and Osterdyk drove away, the silver Jeep
Wrangler pulled into Fox’s driveway. Fox got out of the Jeep, and Officers
Dupler and Jenkins arrested him. By this time, Officers Lamb and Osterdyk had
lost the black Mustang and had returned to Fox’s house. While Officers Lamb
2
and Osterdyk were walking towards the house, Ms. Chiles returned in the black
Mustang. Ms. Chiles stopped the car in the middle of the street and asked
“what’s going on?” ROA, Vol. II, at 34. Officer Osterdyk approached Ms.
Chiles, identified himself as a Tulsa police officer, and showed her his badge.
Officer Osterdyk then got in her car and directed her to pull into a nearby
convenience store parking lot across the street, 1 which was where the officers had
been conducting their surveillance.
Officer Osterdyk then had Ms. Chiles get out of the car, and he asked her if
she had a driver’s license or any other identification. She replied that she had not
had a license for some time. After getting her name and information, Officer
Osterdyk checked with the records division to see if she had a driver’s license and
1
It is unclear from the record precisely what Officer Osterdyk told Ms.
Chiles. When Officer Osterdyk was cross-examined by defense counsel at the
evidentiary hearing, the following exchange took place:
Q. And then you directed her to move her vehicle somewhere else?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was to a corner of a convenience store?
A. Yes, to get her out of the roadway.
Q. So she knew you were an officer?
A. She did.
Q. And was following your directions?
A. Yes.
Q. And once you got her to the store, did you have her get out of the
vehicle?
A. Yes.
ROA, Vol. II, at 48.
3
any outstanding warrants. While he was waiting to receive that information, he
asked Ms. Chiles if she had anything illegal in the car, and she said that she did
not. He then asked her if “she minded if [he] looked real quick and she said, no,
go ahead, there’s nothing to hide.” ROA, Vol. II, at 35. Officer Osterdyk looked
around the front compartment of the car and found a bag that contained what
appeared to be methamphetamine. Although the substance was not field tested,
Ms. Chiles “acknowledged that it was an illegal substance.” ROA, VOL. II at 54.
Ms. Chiles was not arrested, but was told by Officer Osterdyk that the police were
more interested in Fox. 2 She replied that Fox was her husband and that they lived
together. Officer Osterdyk asked if she was on the lease for the house, and she
said that she was. He also asked her if there was anything illegal in their house,
and she said “nothing that she knew of.” ROA, Vol. II, at 37. Officer Osterdyk
then asked if the police could search the house, and she responded: “that would be
fine. There’s nothing to hide.” ROA, Vol. II, at 38. Officers Osterdyk and Lamb
then walked over to the house with Ms. Chiles, and she unlocked the door, letting
the officers inside.
Once inside the house, the officers asked if she would sign a search waiver
form, and she said that she would. Although the officers did not have a waiver
2
At the evidentiary hearing, Officer Osterdyk testified that he told Ms.
Chiles “that we were more interested in the individual that we were doing
surveillance on,” and he mentioned Fox by name. ROA, Vol. II, at 37.
4
form with them, they began to search the house. While searching Fox’s bedroom,
the officers discovered a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition. Following the
search, the officers obtained a search waiver form, “read over it with [Ms.
Chiles], explained everything on it, and asked her if she understood.” ROA, Vol.
II, at 39. She then signed the form.
Throughout the encounter, the officers spoke in a calm, conversational tone
with Ms. Chiles. They never displayed their weapons, nor did they make any
explicit threats or promises.
As a result of the officers finding the shotgun and ammunition in his house,
Fox was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and one count
of possession of an unregistered shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long, in
violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845(a), 5861(d), and 5871. Fox filed a motion
to suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing that Ms. Chiles’s consent to
search the home was not voluntary. The district court held an evidentiary hearing
and denied Fox’s motion to suppress, ruling that Ms. Chiles voluntarily consented
to the search. Fox sought reconsideration of the district court’s order, arguing
that the testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearing indicated that Ms. Chiles was
illegally seized, and thus, her subsequent consent was invalid under Brown v.
Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975). The district court ruled that the encounter between
Officer Osterdyk and Ms. Chiles was consensual and not a seizure, and even if
5
she was illegally seized, application of the Brown factors indicated that her
subsequent consent to search the home was not tainted by any illegality.
Fox entered a conditional guilty plea to count two of the indictment,
knowing possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, reserving the right to
appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The government dismissed count one
of the indictment, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The
district court sentenced Fox to 48 months’ imprisonment. Fox appeals the denial
of his motion to suppress the evidence found in his home.
II
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the factual
findings of the district court for clear error, viewing “the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government.” United States v. Chavez, 534 F.3d 1338,
1343 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). We “review de novo the
reasonableness of the government’s action under the Fourth Amendment.” Id.
A warrantless search of an individual’s home is “per se unreasonable under
the Fourth Amendment unless the government can show that it falls within one of
a carefully defined set of exceptions.” United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d 1115, 1123
(10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). Here, the government relied on Ms.
Chiles’s consent to search the home as an exception to the general warrant
requirement. Fox argues that Ms. Chiles’s consent was invalid because it was
tainted by a prior illegal seizure and, as a result, her consent was not voluntary.
6
When a consensual search follows a Fourth Amendment violation, the
government must prove both (1) that the consent was voluntary under the totality
of the circumstances, and (2) that there was “a break in the causal connection
between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained.” United States v.
Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d 1046, 1053 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal citations,
quotation, and footnote omitted). “Although the two requirements will often
overlap to a considerable degree, they address separate constitutional values and
they are not always coterminous.” Id. at 1054. “We require the government to
demonstrate that any taint of an illegal search or seizure has been purged or
attenuated not only because we are concerned that the illegal seizure may affect
the voluntariness of the defendant’s consent, but also to effectuate the purposes of
the exclusionary rule.” Id.
A
In order to determine whether Ms. Chiles’s consent was tainted by an
unlawful seizure, we must first determine whether Ms. Chiles was unlawfully
seized. We review de novo the district court’s determination that the encounter
between Ms. Chiles and the police was consensual and not a seizure. See United
States v. Abdenbi, 361 F.3d 1282, 1291 (10th Cir. 2004).
We have identified three general categories of encounters between police
and citizens:
(1) consensual encounters which do not implicate the Fourth
7
Amendment; (2) investigative detentions which are Fourth Amendment
seizures of limited scope and duration and must be supported by a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) arrests, the most
intrusive of Fourth Amendment seizures and reasonable only if
supported by probable cause.
United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1280, 1283 (quoting United States v. Torres-
Guevara, 147 F.3d 1261, 1264 (10th Cir. 1998)). Fox argues that although the
encounter was initially consensual when Ms. Chiles stopped her car and asked
what was going on, it soon became a seizure. Specifically, he contends that when
Officer Osterdyk entered Ms. Chiles’s car and directed her to drive to a nearby
parking lot, Ms. Chiles was seized under the Fourth Amendment. We agree.
“[A] person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable
person would have believed that [s]he was not free to leave.” United States v.
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). The critical inquiry is whether “the police
conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that [s]he was not at
liberty to ignore the police presence and go about [her] business.” Florida v.
Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) (quotation omitted).
In determining whether an individual has been seized, we have considered
several factors, including:
(1) the threatening presence of several officers; (2) the brandishing of
a weapon by an officer; (3) physical touching by an officer; (4)
aggressive language or tone of voice by an officer indicating
compliance is compulsory; (5) prolonged retention of a person’s
8
personal effects; (6) a request to accompany the officer to the police
station; (7) interaction in a small, enclosed, or non-public place; and (8)
absence of other members of the public.
United States v. Rogers, 556 F.3d 1130, 1137–38 (10th Cir. 2009). No single
factor is dispositive, and this list is not exhaustive. Id. at 1138. Another relevant
factor that suggests an encounter is not consensual is whether the officer advised
an individual that she is free to leave. United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307,
1314 (10th Cir. 2006).
With these principles in mind, we conclude that under the totality of the
circumstances, a reasonable person in Ms. Chiles’s position would not have felt
free to ignore Officer Osterdyk’s presence in her car and go about her business.
The initial encounter between Officer Osterdyk and Ms. Chiles, when Ms. Chiles
stopped her car and asked the officers what was going on, was consensual.
However, Officer Osterdyk’s subsequent actions changed the nature of the
encounter from a consensual encounter to a seizure. See Lopez, 443 F.3d at 1284
(“[I]t is settled that the nature of the police-citizen encounter can change—what
may begin as a consensual encounter may change to an investigative detention if
the police conduct changes and vice versa.” (quotation omitted)). Officer
Osterdyk identified himself as a police officer, displayed his badge, entered Ms.
Chiles’s car, 3 directed her to drive to a nearby parking lot, and never advised her
3
We note that there is no indication in the record that Officer Osterdyk
(continued...)
9
that she was free to leave. Under these circumstances, the officer’s coercive show
of authority would communicate to a reasonable person that she was not free to
terminate the encounter. Cf. United States v. Elliott, 107 F.3d 810, 814 (10th Cir.
1997) (considering as a “coercive show of authority” whether an officer was
leaning against or touching an individual’s car). Although the government
contends that Ms. Chiles could have told Officer Osterdyk to get out of her car,
we do not think that under the circumstances a reasonable person would have felt
free to do so. Accordingly, we conclude that Ms. Chiles was seized within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Because we conclude that Ms. Chiles was seized, we must next determine
whether that seizure was lawful. An individual “may not be detained even
momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so . . . .” Florida v.
Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498 (1983). The reasonableness of investigative detentions
is outlined in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), which also applies to traffic stops.
See United States v. Stephenson, 452 F.3d 1173, 1176 (10th Cir. 2006).
Investigative detentions are reasonable if “the detaining officer has a reasonable
suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” Stephenson, 452 F.3d at 1176.
3
(...continued)
asked permission to enter Ms. Chiles’s car or that she invited him into her car.
Cf. United States v. Spence, 397 F.3d 1280, 1284 (10th Cir. 2005) (concluding
that an encounter was consensual and noting that “agents asked for permission to
enter [the defendant’s] home and that [the defendant] invited them inside”).
10
Reasonable suspicion requires “‘a particularized and objective basis’ for
suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity . . . .” Ornelas v. United
States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411,
417 (1981)).
The government has not argued (either to the district court or on appeal)
that the seizure of Ms. Chiles was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Additionally, our review of the record indicates that the officers did not have
reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure. 4 The district court made no
determination regarding reasonable suspicion. Rather, the district court appears
to have justified the intrusion because “it was the easiest way to get her out of the
street . . . .” ROA, Vol. II, at 77. In addition to being factually dubious, this
conclusion does not address whether the seizure was justified by reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity. Regardless of whether it was the easiest way to get
her out of the street, it was a seizure, and therefore, must be supported by
reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Alarcon-Gonzalez, 73 F.3d 289,
292–93 (10th Cir. 1996) (“[W]hether or not the command to ‘freeze’ was justified
is immaterial because its effect was to turn the encounter that followed into a
4
At the evidentiary hearing, Officer Dupler testified he received
information from the confidential informant on “the female involved.” ROA, Vol.
II, at 18. When asked what information he had “on the female,” Officer Dupler
said: “Oh, drugs. Same kind of issue, I think.” ROA, Vol. II, at 18. This single,
vague statement does not constitute reasonable and articulable suspicion that
would have justified detaining Ms. Chiles.
11
nonconsensual seizure. . . . Once the reason that justified the initial stop is
dispelled, further detention unsupported by reasonable suspicion violates the
Fourth Amendment.”). Because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to
detain Ms. Chiles, the seizure was unlawful. See id. 5
B
We now turn to whether the unlawful seizure rendered Ms. Chiles’s consent
to search the home invalid and the subsequently discovered evidence
inadmissible. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963). To
demonstrate that the taint of an illegal seizure has dissipated, “the government
must prove, from the totality of the circumstances, a sufficient attenuation or
break in the causal connection between the illegal detention and the consent.”
United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted).
This is a heavy burden. See id. In Brown v. Illinois, the Supreme Court
articulated three factors especially relevant to this inquiry: “1) the temporal
proximity between the police illegality and the consent to search; 2) the presence
of intervening circumstances; and particularly 3) the purpose and flagrancy of the
official misconduct.” Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d at 1054 (citing Brown, 422 U.S.
at 603–04). Because this analysis is fact-intensive, “the district court’s findings
5
Additionally, we note that there is no suggestion that the seizure was
supported by probable cause. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)
(“[T]he level of suspicion required for a Terry stop is obviously less demanding
than that for probable cause.”).
12
must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Eylicio-
Montoya, 70 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 1995). A factual finding is clearly
erroneous if “it is without factual support in the record or, after reviewing all the
evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” United States v. Barnhardt, 93 F.3d 706, 710 (10th Cir. 1996).
Beginning with the first factor, the district court found there was close
temporal proximity between Ms. Chiles’s seizure and her subsequent consent to
search the house. The record does not reveal the exact length of the encounter
between Ms. Chiles and Officer Osterdyk, but during that encounter, Ms. Chiles
drove across the street to a parking lot, Officer Osterdyk ran a records check, and
he searched the front compartment of her car. The district court concluded that
this close temporal proximity weighs against a finding of attenuation. We agree.
See United States v. McSwain, 29 F.3d 558, 563 (10th Cir. 1994) (first factors
“weigh[ed] heavily against finding the taint cleansed” where the defendant
consented “only a few minutes after being illegally detained”); United States v.
Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993, 1012 (10th Cir. 1992) (thirty to forty-five
minute period by itself “reveal[ed] little about whether the [time] that elapsed had
any effect on [the] decision to permit the search”); United States v. Maez, 872
F.2d 1444, 1455 (10th Cir. 1989) (thirty minute time period between “the arrest
and Mrs. Maez’ consents clearly indicate that [the] taint [of the Fourth
Amendment] violation was not purged”).
13
Turning to the second Brown factor, the district court found that there was
an intervening circumstance, stating:
[T]here was a significant intervening circumstance, namely at the
time [Ms. Chiles] consented to search, she had voluntarily agreed to let
the officers inside, had walked them up to the house, and had let them
into the home with a key.
The intervening circumstances, or the intervening circumstance
in this case was the other [sic] lack of confinement, interrogation or any
other coercive circumstance at the time she consented to the search.
Thus, the consent to search was not given in any type of
detention setting.
ROA, Vol. II, at 78. This finding was clearly erroneous.
The district court clearly erred in suggesting that Ms. Chiles’s voluntary
consent itself was an intervening circumstance. Her consent is not in itself an
intervening event which could remove the taint of the prior illegal seizure. See
Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d at 1054 (clarifying the distinction between the “dual
requirement” that consent be voluntary in fact and free of the taint of police
illegality, and rejecting the rule that “consent that is voluntary in fact is in itself
an intervening act that purges any police illegality”). Under the facts presented,
there was no basis for finding an intervening circumstance.
Under the second Brown factor, “there must be proof of facts or events
which ensure that the consent provided . . . [was] not the fruit of the illegal
[seizure]. The facts or events must create a discontinuity between the illegal
[seizure] and the consent such that the original illegality is weakened and
attenuated.” Gregory, 79 F.3d at 980; see also United States v. Reed, 349 F.3d
14
457, 464 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The type of intervening events that serve to attenuate
official misconduct are those that sever the causal connection between the illegal
[seizure] and the discovery of the evidence.”). Some examples of intervening
circumstances include “carefully explain[ing]” a consent form and advising an
individual of the right to withhold consent, see Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d at
1012, 6 “release from custody, an appearance before a magistrate, or consultation
with an attorney,” United States v. Washington, 387 F.3d 1060, 1074 (9th Cir.
2004), to name a few. After reviewing the record, we conclude there were no
intervening events that would have broken or attenuated the causal connection
between the illegal seizure and the consent. Thus, the district court clearly erred
in concluding that this factor weighed towards a finding of attenuation.
Finally, we look at the third factor, whether the officer’s misconduct was
purposeful or flagrant. The district court found that “any official misconduct that
did occur was in no way flagrant. The Court finds that nothing the police did
during the alleged detention would have impacted Chiles’ decision to consent to
6
According to the officers’ testimony, Ms. Chiles signed a consent form,
and Officer Osterdyk went over the form with her and told her that she had the
right to tell him to stop searching at any point. ROA, Vol. II, at 52. However,
the officers went over the form with Ms. Chiles after they had already obtained
the initial consent and searched the house. Thus, we do not see how this could be
an “intervening” event. See United States v. Santa, 236 F.3d 662, 678 (8th Cir.
2000) (“[T]he fact that [the defendant] signed a consent form after the search was
complete does not persuade us that his consent was not the product of the illegal
arrest.”).
15
search.” ROA, Vol. II, at 78. But the inquiry under this factor is not whether the
officers’ conduct—apart from the illegal seizure—coerced Ms. Chiles to consent.
See Reed, 349 F.3d at 465 (“‘[P]urposeful and flagrant’ misconduct is not limited
to situations where police act in an outright threatening or coercive manner . . .
.”). Rather, purposeful and flagrant misconduct is generally found where: “(1) the
impropriety of the official’s misconduct was obvious or the official knew, at the
time, that his conduct was likely unconstitutional but engaged in it nevertheless;
and (2) the misconduct was investigatory in design and purpose and executed ‘in
the hope that something might turn up.’” United States v. Simpson, 439 F.3d 490,
496 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Brown, 422 U.S. at 605). Additionally, it may be
significant that the “officers ha[d] no right whatsoever to detain the person from
whom consent is sought.” Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d at 1055–56; see also United
States v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting that the
third factor “weigh[ed] toward suppression because . . . the initial stop violated
Defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights”). It does not appear from the record that
the district court conducted the proper analysis under the third Brown factor.
In discussing whether Ms. Chiles was seized, the district court found that
Officer Osterdyk “[e]ntered the car merely because he was on foot, it was the
easiest way to get [Ms. Chiles] out of the street and he directed her to a nearby
parking lot.” ROA, Vol. II, at 77. Arguably, this finding might weigh against the
flagrancy and purposefulness of the officer’s conduct. However, the district
16
court’s conclusion is without support in the record. Officer Osterdyk did not
explain why he got in Ms. Chiles’s car. Indeed, he never testified that he got in
her car at all; that information came to light only during the testimony of the
government’s final witness, and Officer Osterdyk’s partner, Officer Lamb. The
district court’s conclusion that the seizure was merely “the easiest way to get her
out of the street,” ROA, Vol. II, at 77, is not supported by the record, is pure
speculation, and is not a reasonable inference.
The record suggests that the officer’s conduct was purposeful and flagrant.
Without probable cause or an articulable reasonable suspicion justifying the
seizure of Ms. Chiles, see Melendez-Garcia, 28 F.3d at 1055–56, Officer
Osterdyk got in her car and directed her to drive across the street to a parking lot
where the police were conducting surveillance. Once there, he asked for her
identification, learned that she did not have a license, and then asked to search her
car. Upon searching her car he found what he thought were illegal drugs and told
Ms. Chiles that they were “more interested” in Fox. ROA, Vol. II, at 37. At that
point, she said that Fox was her husband and they lived together; Officer
Osterdyk then asked if she was on the lease to the house, and then asked for her
consent to search the house. At no time did the officers inform Ms. Chiles that
she was free to leave. See United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 882 (10th
Cir. 1994) (although not a prerequisite, informing an individual of the right to
refuse consent is “a factor particularly worth noting”). These circumstances
17
indicate that Officer Osterdyk detained Ms. Chiles “with a quality of
purposefulness, embarking upon a fishing expedition in the hope that something
might turn up.” McSwain, 29 F.3d at 563 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). This factor also weighs against a finding that the taint of the illegal
seizure had been purged.
After reviewing the totality of the circumstances, including the three
Brown factors, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, we conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that there
was sufficient attenuation between the illegal seizure of Ms. Chiles and her
subsequent consent. See id. (circumstances indicated that the taint was not
purged—the officer leaned over and rested his arm on the driver’s door when
asking for consent, did not specifically inform the driver that he was free to leave
or refuse to consent, and the illegality had a quality of purposefulness). We are
left with the firm conviction that the government failed to meet its heavy burden
of establishing that Ms. Chiles’s consent was purged of the taint of her unlawful
seizure. Accordingly, the evidence found as a result of that consent must be
suppressed. 7
7
Because we conclude that the district court clearly erred in determining
that the taint of the illegal seizure was sufficiently attenuated, we need not
address Fox’s separate argument that Ms. Chiles’s consent was not voluntary
under Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
18
III
We REVERSE the district court’s denial of Fox’s motion to suppress and
REMAND for further proceedings.
19