United States v. Harden

104 F.4th 830

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lakesia L. HARDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-14004

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Filed: June 18, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cr-00003-DHB-BKE-2

Justin Davids, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney's Office, Savannah, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel James O'Connor, Bryant & O'Connor Law Firm, Vidalia, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Grant, Luck, and Hull, Circuit Judges.

Luck, Circuit Judge:

The Supreme Court has said that a warrantless search of a probationer's home, supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and authorized by a probation condition, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001). The question here is whether a warrantless search of a probationer's home that is otherwise reasonable as to the probationer is rendered unreasonable merely because a non-probationer is occupying the home. Joining our sister circuit, we hold that it is not where the occupant knows about the probation. See Smith v. City of Santa Clara, 876 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2017).

An officer searched Tremayne Linder's home without a warrant because he was on probation, one of his conditions authorized warrantless home searches, and the officer had reasonable suspicion that marijuana was in the home. Those circumstances made the search reasonable. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 122, 122 S.Ct. 587. It was not rendered unreasonable merely because Linder's girlfriend (Lakesia Harden), who knew Linder was on probation, was an occupant of the home. For that reason, the district court properly denied the motions to suppress the drugs found in Linder's home and the statements that resulted from finding the drugs. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 21, 2016, a Georgia superior court sentenced Linder to twenty years of probation after he pleaded guilty to burglary and attempted armed robbery. His probation came with the condition that he "not violate the criminal laws of any governmental unit." But he violated that condition by using marijuana. So, on January 12, 2018, the state court imposed additional probation conditions. For example, Linder had to "enroll in, attend, and complete all phases" of a drug treatment program. And he had to "submit to a search of his . . . person, residence, papers, vehicle, and[ ] effects . . . , any time of the day or night with or without a search warrant whenever requested to do so by a [p]robation [s]upervisor or any law enforcement officer." That condition allowed for "the use of anything seized as evidence in a judicial or disciplinary proceeding."

Linder signed the orders imposing the new conditions, acknowledging that his probation may be revoked if he violated them. But he violated his conditions again by missing mandatory meetings of his drug treatment program. So, on April 5, 2018, the state court issued a warrant for his arrest.

At the time, Linder shared his home with Harden, his girlfriend, and the couple shared the same bedroom. Harden knew Linder was on probation. When Probation Officer Timothy Ray visited Linder's home before April 2018, Harden answered the door "a few times" and would "bring [Linder] to the door so [Officer Ray] could talk to him" about his probation.

On April 9, 2018, Officer Ray and Dublin Police Department Sergeant Eric Roland went to execute the arrest warrant at Linder's home. As soon as they walked up to the front door, Sergeant Roland smelled a "very strong odor" of marijuana. Officer Ray smelled it, too. Harden met the officers at the door. Linder was not at the home, although Harden's child was there and her sister, Tamara Harden, was visiting.

Harden told the officers that Linder was at a drug treatment meeting. But Officer Ray placed a call and confirmed that Linder was not at the meeting. Harden then invited the officers inside the home, saying, "you can come look if you want to." Sergeant Roland entered the home while Officer Ray stayed by the door.

Once inside, Sergeant Roland noticed that the marijuana smell "intensified" to a "very pungent odor," "probably the strongest smell [he's] smelled inside of a residence since [he has] been working in policing." He told Harden that the officers were "probably about to conduct [a] search" of the home. Before the search, Sergeant Roland confirmed with Officer Ray that Linder's probation conditions included a warrantless search condition. And Sergeant Roland again confirmed—this time with Officer Ray's supervisor—that Linder had "search conditions on his residence." Sergeant Roland then announced into his radio, while in the living room in Harden's presence, that he planned to search the home based on Linder's probation search condition. Harden did not respond or object in any way to Sergeant Roland's announcement.

Sergeant Roland's search did not last long. Because the marijuana smell was "powerful," he found its source in "probably [thirty] seconds." He went from the living room to a "little hallway area" and "smelled in each bedroom until [he] got to" Harden and Linder's shared bedroom. As soon as he smelled inside the couple's bedroom, Sergeant Roland "could tell that the odor was coming from that area." He walked in and traced the smell to a closet that the couple also shared. Inside the closet, Sergeant Roland found a camouflage tote bag that contained a black backpack. And, inside the backpack, he found twelve small bags of marijuana and methamphetamine wrapped in electrical tape.

After he found the drugs, Sergeant Roland arrested Harden and read her Miranda¹ rights. Harden initially said the drugs weren't hers and that she didn't know who they belonged to. But she later admitted that she was holding the drugs in the closet for a "close friend."

Harden was indicted for possessing marijuana and methamphetamine with the intent to distribute them, in violation of 21 U.S.C. section 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. section 2. She moved to suppress the marijuana and meth found during Sergeant Roland's search, plus her post-arrest statements as fruits of the allegedly unlawful search. But the district court denied the suppression motions. At trial, the government admitted the drugs and Harden's statements into evidence, and the jury found her guilty as charged in the indictment.

Harden appeals the denial of her suppression motions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When we review the denial of suppression motions, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its application of the law de novo. United States v. Spivey, 861 F.3d 1207, 1212 (11th Cir. 2017). "[W]e review the entire record, including trial testimony," not just "the record made at the suppression hearing." United States v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221, 1224 (11th Cir. 2007).

DISCUSSION

Harden argues on appeal that the warrantless probation search of the bedroom she occupied with Linder violated the Fourth Amendment. We disagree.

A.

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "As the text makes clear, 'the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.' " Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 381, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (marks omitted) (quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006)).

In "the ordinary case," a warrantless search is unreasonable. Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001) (quoting United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983)). And warrantless searches of homes "are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). But not always. "When faced with special law enforcement needs, diminished expectations of privacy, minimal intrusions, or the like, the [Supreme] Court has found that certain . . . circumstances may render a warrantless search . . . reasonable." McArthur, 531 U.S. at 330-31, 121 S.Ct. 946 (listing examples); see also Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (explaining that, although "reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant," "a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required . . . , probable cause is not invariably required either").

One circumstance that can render a warrantless search reasonable, as recognized in Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), is where law enforcement has reasonable grounds to search a probationer's home and the warrantless search is authorized by state law. In Griffin, a probationer's "home [was] searched by probation officers acting without a warrant." Id. at 870, 107 S.Ct. 3164. The officers had received "information from a detective . . . that there were or might be guns in [the probationer]'s apartment," and a state regulation provided that probationers' homes could be searched without a warrant "as long as there [we]re 'reasonable grounds.' " Id. at 871, 107 S.Ct. 3164 (citation omitted).

The Supreme Court concluded that "[t]he search . . . was 'reasonable' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted pursuant to a valid [state] regulation governing probationers." Id. at 880, 107 S.Ct. 3164. "A probationer's home, like anyone else's, is protected by the Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches be 'reasonable.' " Id. at 873, 107 S.Ct. 3164. But, the Court explained, it has "permitted exceptions when 'special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.' " Id. (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83...