F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
NOV 26 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 98-8087
DEAN KELLY DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
(D. Ct. No. 97-CR-133-B)
James H. Barrett, Assistant Federal Defender, Cheyenne, Wyoming, appearing for
Appellant.
James C. Anderson, Assistant United States Attorney (David D. Freudenthal,
United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Cheyenne, Wyoming, appearing
for Appellee.
Before TACHA , MCKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
TACHA , Circuit Judge.
Dean Kelly Davis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
to suppress evidence found in his home. The evidence, which Davis claims was
obtained during the course of an unreasonable arrest and without valid consent,
resulted in his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291
and affirm.
I. Standard of Review
Reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the district court’s
factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Gama-Bastidas , 142
F.3d 1233, 1237 (10 th
Cir. 1998). We view the evidence in its totality and in the
light most favorable to the government. Id. We review the ultimate
reasonableness of a search or seizure de novo. Id. The voluntariness of consent
is a question of fact and we review the district court’s determination for clear
error. United States v. Melendez-Garcia , 28 F.3d 1046, 1054 (10 th
Cir. 1994).
II. Background
About 9:45 p.m. on August 2, 1997, Patrolman Flint Waters responded to a
call reporting vandalism to an automobile. The complainant, Mandy Watson, told
Waters that she and Davis, her estranged boyfriend, had argued earlier in the day
and that Davis had said he intended to shatter her windshield. Watson also
reported that Davis had threatened her and another individual in the past and
often carried an SKS semi-automatic rifle.
Patrolman Waters examined Watson’s vehicle and found that the
-2-
windshield had been shattered. He spotted a crushed beer can and a fresh flower
amid the shards of glass. Waters also observed a footprint bearing a distinctive
treadmark along the vehicle’s hood.
That same evening, the police received another call involving Davis. This
call reported a threat in progress, even as Waters and Watson were speaking.
Kyle Duvall told the responding officer that Davis had phoned him and threatened
physical harm, then appeared at his doorstep and demanded he step outside.
When Duvall refused, he heard the sound of a bullet entering a rifle-chamber.
Davis then said that someone was going to be shot and that he felt like shooting
someone.
The responding officer radioed Duvall’s story back to his dispatch.
Patrolman Waters, Watson and other officers heard both this broadcast and the
earlier threat in progress report. Waters also heard another broadcast reporting
shots fired, which only later proved not to involve Davis. While responding to
this broadcast, Waters received another call reporting that Davis was riding in a
car driving behind him. The same information reached other officers who, with
Waters, soon approached Davis near a crowded and frequently rowdy nightspot.
In view of the evening’s reports, the officers conducted a “felony stop.”
The police removed Davis and the driver from the vehicle at gunpoint and
handcuffed them. Both men showed signs of having been drinking, but were not
-3-
yet intoxicated.
Waters told the two men that the police were investigating a report of
threats involving a gun. The driver consented to a search of the vehicle, and the
officers found ammunition, speed loaders and a holster, but no gun. Waters
noticed that Davis’ shoes bore a treadmark that apparently matched the one that
he had observed on Ms. Watson’s vehicle. Waters advised Davis that he was not
under arrest but read him his Miranda rights nonetheless. Davis then admitted
that he and Watson had argued that day and that he had shattered her windshield.
Because a crowd had begun to congregate and make taunting remarks, the
officers decided to continue their questioning of Davis at headquarters. They
asked whether he would accompany them and Davis, still handcuffed, agreed.
At the station, Waters asked Davis whether he owned an SKS rifle. Davis
admitted that he kept such a rifle in his bedroom and gave Waters permission to
seize it. He signed a consent to search form which, in plain language, advised
him of his right to refuse. Davis then led the officers to his home and directed
Waters to his bedroom. There Waters found an SKS semi-automatic rifle and one
round of ammunition.
The district court found that 1) Davis’ de facto arrest was supported by
probable cause and 2) Davis’ consent to the search of his home was fully
informed and voluntary. We agree.
-4-
III. Seizure and Probable Cause under the Fourth Amendment and
Wyoming Law
The United States concedes that, notwithstanding Patrolman Waters’
statement to Davis that he was not under arrest, Davis was effectively arrested.
We must therefore determine whether Davis’ arrest satisfied the requirements of
the Fourth Amendment and Wyoming law.
A. The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable . . . seizures.” U.S. Const.
amend. IV. An arrest is a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes and is
reasonable where there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been or is
being committed. Henry v. United States , 361 U.S. 98, 102 (1959). Probable
cause is measured against an objective standard. Beck v. Ohio , 379 U.S. 89, 96
(1964). It is evaluated “in relation to the circumstances as they would have
appeared to prudent, cautious and trained police officers.” United States v.
McCormick , 468 F.2d 68, 73 (10 th
Cir. 1972). The “subjective belief” of an
individual officer as to whether there was probable cause for making an arrest is
not dispositive. Florida v. Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 507 (1983).
Davis concedes that the “felony stop” was reasonable but argues that his
continued detention was not. We disagree. In light of the circumstances, the
officers had ample cause to believe that Davis had violated Wyoming law.
-5-
Wyoming prohibits “property destruction and defacement,” defined as “knowingly
defac[ing], injur[ing] or destroy[ing] property of another without the owner’s
consent.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-201(a) (1999). Wyoming also prohibits “breach
of the peace,” defined as “using threatening, abusive or obscene language or
violent actions with knowledge or probable cause to believe [these] will disturb
the peace.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-6-102(a) (1999). Davis reportedly had
threatened to shatter his estranged girlfriend’s windshield and then admitted to
having done so. Davis also reportedly had threatened Mr. Duvall over the
telephone, appeared at his home demanding that he step outside, and announced
that someone was going to be shot. Prudent, cautious, trained police officers
could reasonably have believed that Davis had committed two crimes under these
circumstances. Therefore, probable cause under the Fourth Amendment existed
for the effective arrest of Davis.
B. Wyoming Law
Under Wyoming law, a peace officer may arrest a suspect without a written
warrant when “[t]he officer has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor has
been committed, that the person to be arrested has committed it and that the
person, unless immediately arrested . . . [m]ay cause injury to himself or others or
damage to property.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-2-102(b)(iii)(B) (1999).
Davis concedes that concern might have been justified, but argues that
-6-
probable cause to expect continued criminal activity was dissipated by the
absence of weapons. We find to the contrary. At the time the officers arrested
Davis, they had probable cause to believe that he had committed “property
destruction and defacement” and “breach of the peace.” They also had reason to
believe that Davis carried an automatic rifle. They had found ammunition, a
holster and loaders, but had not found the gun. They had learned of an unfinished
encounter with Duvall. Finally, they had found Davis under the influence of
alcohol in a rowdy nightclub district. Under these circumstances the officers had
ample cause under § 7-2-102 to believe that Davis had committed two
misdemeanors and that he “may” have gone on to cause further injury or damage
to person or property “unless immediately arrested.” Therefore, Davis’ effective
arrest was justified under Wyoming law.
IV. Search and Consent under the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment also prohibits “unreasonable searches.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. A warrantless search of an arrestee’s home is per se
unreasonable unless it falls within some well defined exception to the general
rule. United States v. Butler , 966 F.2d 559, 562 (10 th
Cir. 1992). An arrestee’s
consent to the search qualifies as one such exception. Id. Consent must be
“unequivocal and specific” and “freely and intelligently given.” United States v.
Soto , 988 F.2d 1548, 1557 (10 th
Cir. 1993). The government must prove the
-7-
satisfaction of these criteria in light of the totality of circumstances. Id. Where a
consensual search is preceded by a Fourth Amendment violation, the government
must prove not only voluntariness, but “‘establish a break in the causal
connection between the illegality and the evidence thereby obtained.’” Melendez-
Garcia , 28 F.3d at 1053 (quoting United States v. Recalde , 761 F.2d 1448, 1458
(10 th Cir. 1985)). We examine the entire record on appeal in determining
voluntariness. United States v. Muniz , 1 F.3d 1018, 1021 (10 th
Cir. 1993).
Davis argues that the consent which he gave to search his home was the
product of an illegal detention. Absent any intervening event purging the
resultant taint, he contends that his consent was involuntary. Again we disagree.
Davis’ detention was not illegal. Davis’ arrest was supported by probable cause
and therefore could not “taint” his consent to the search of his bedroom.
Accordingly, we need only determine whether the district court clearly erred in
finding that Davis’ consent was unequivocal, specific, and freely and intelligently
given.
The district court found at the suppression hearing that Davis had been
advised of his Miranda rights, had orally consented to the search of his bedroom
for his gun, and had signed a plainly drafted form advising him of his right to
refuse. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Davis did not know what he
was doing, that he did not know of his right to refuse, or that he could reasonably
-8-
have feared any harm to himself in the event that he should exercise that right.
Further, at trial Davis testified clearly to the knowing and voluntary nature of his
consent, his awareness at the time of his right to refuse, his having directed
Patrolman Waters to the precise location of his rifle, and even the reasons for his
cooperation. We thus find that the district court did not commit clear error when
it determined that Davis freely, intelligently, unequivocally and specifically
consented to the search of his bedroom. Therefore, the search did not violate the
Fourth Amendment.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons we hold that 1) defendant’s detention was neither
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment nor unwarranted under Wyoming Law,
and 2) the search of defendant’s home was the product of knowing, specific,
unequivocal and uncoerced consent, and therefore was reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment.
AFFIRMED.
-9-