Court of Appeal: Sheriff's Office Violated the Constitution

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled May 21 that an Archuleta County Sheriff's Office (ACSO) detective violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting a local resident and his family to enter their home for a period of eight hours before obtaining a search warrant for the property.

The ruling orders the removal of two firearms found on the property from evidence in a case where Corban Elmore is accused of being a felon in possession of a firearm due to the firearms were located in the context of the occupation of the house by ASER.

Elmore previously asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to suppress guns from evidence in the case against him, which the lower court rejected.

Following this, Elmore appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld his appeal to suppress the guns from evidence in the May 21 ruling and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

The May 21 ruling begins by laying out the events, stating that Elmore's teenage son suffered a drug overdose and fell unconscious on a Tuesday morning and was taken to the hospital by emergency medical technicians (paramedics). .

Colorado Politics reports that the events occurred in April 2021.

Before her son was transported, Elmore provided a paramedic with a box from her son's room containing various drugs and drug paraphernalia, the ruling states.

Around 11:30 a.m., about 30 minutes after paramedics arrived, the ruling explains that ACSO Detective Patrick Smith ordered two deputies to secure Elmore's home and not let anyone in before leaving for the hospital to get more information about Elmore's son.

In the hours that followed, Elmore, his wife Jessica Hayes and their young child were refused entry to their home by ACSO deputies, who declared the home a “crime scene” and They were “conducting an investigation”, according to the court. document.

Elmore and Hayes both consented to officers searching their son's bedroom and said there were unattended pets in the home that needed care, among other things, the ruling explains.

However, the police refused to allow them to enter the house or search the room, it is said.

While this was happening, the ruling states, Smith conducted interviews regarding the overdose and the drugs found in the box.

As part of the process of obtaining a search warrant, officers at the home took photos of the exterior of the home, the ruling states, and in doing so saw what appeared to be a safe. fort and a weapons rack inside the house.

They then relayed that information to Smith, the ruling says, who ran a criminal background check on Elmore and determined he had four felony convictions.

He says Smith requested a search warrant at 7:30 p.m. and indicated in that request that officers saw a gun safe in the home and that Elmore had a prior felony conviction.

The warrant was issued 20 minutes after Smith requested it, the decision states, and a search of Elmore's home later that day using the warrant uncovered two firearms in the house, which were used as evidence a month later when Elmore was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

No charges have been filed regarding the overdose or drugs at the home, it says.

The ruling says the district court, in denying Elmore's motion to suppress the guns from evidence in the case, concluded that the seizure of Elmore's home was reasonable because the officers had probable cause to believe that the house contained evidence of drug possession and that there was good reason to fear that the occupants of the property would destroy such evidence before a warrant was issued.

He adds that the district court also found that the officers acted reasonably during the seizure, including barring the Elmore family from their home and delaying obtaining a warrant to allow Smith to carry out further investigation.

Following the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, the decision explains, Elmore entered a conditional guilty plea, which allows the defendant to appeal to a higher court to determine whether the judge made an incorrect ruling on an issue key in a case, and was sentenced to 24 months in prison and three years of supervised release.

As explained in the decision, the appeals court differed from the lower court in finding a violation of the Fourth Amendment on two central grounds, both based on a four-prong test for determining the reasonableness of seizing a home. by officers without a warrant, stated by the United States Supreme Court. Illinois v. McArthur decision.

The ruling says the four criteria supporting the reasonableness of a seizure set forth in the McArthur decision are that officers have probable cause to believe that a home contains evidence of a crime, that they have reason to believe that evidence can be destroyed before obtaining a warrant. , that they make “reasonable efforts to balance” the needs of law enforcement with the demands of privacy and that the seizure lasts no longer than “reasonably necessary” for the police to obtain a search warrant at home.

The decision notes that Elmore contends the initial seizure was unreasonable because the officers did not have probable cause to believe the house contained evidence of a crime and reason to believe the evidence would be destroyed, but chose to assume that the initial seizure was justified under these standards and instead focuses on whether the seizure later became unreasonable under the third and fourth MacArthur standards.

The decision concludes that the seizure was not reasonable under the third criterion because the deputies failed to make reasonable efforts to balance law enforcement needs and privacy needs in prohibiting Elmore and his family access to their home.

It says law enforcement's primary concern about the seizure was the potential destruction of evidence and that officers could have prevented such destruction by allowing the family supervised entry into the home, which they did not. have not done.

“Because the agents made no effort, much less a reasonable effort, to balance these competing interests, this factor weighs heavily against the government,” the decision said, referring to the interests of the security forces. order and privacy.

The decision also finds that law enforcement failed to meet McArthur's fourth standard, namely continuing the seizure for as long as was reasonably necessary to obtain a warrant.

In this conclusion, the decision disagrees with the district court's analysis, noting that McArthur only allows law enforcement to seize a home long enough to obtain a warrant, not as long as he necessary to conduct an investigation that ultimately results in a warrant, as the district court held.

He states that Smith had enough evidence to obtain a warrant immediately because he had probable cause to believe the house contained evidence of drug crimes, but instead spent a lot of time investigating more thoroughly before attempting to obtain a warrant.

The decision also notes that the seizure occurred at a time when the courts were open to process the search warrant application and that Smith used the information obtained during the seizure of the property in the search warrant application he finally filed.

The decision then considers whether the illegal seizure of property justifies removing the firearms from evidence.

It states that under the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine, evidence obtained directly from an illegal search or seizure and evidence obtained subsequently but derived from an illegal seizure must be suppressed.

The ruling explains that, for evidence to be suppressed, Elmore must demonstrate a “factual connection between the illegality and the disputed evidence” and show that the evidence considered for suppression would not have been found but for the government's unconstitutional conduct.

He concluded that Elmore successfully demonstrated this connection, noting that law enforcement had no reason to believe that there were guns in Elmore's home before the seizure and that the seizure allowed officers to find firearm evidence necessary to eventually search and seize the firearms. .

The ruling also rejects the government's argument that a search warrant for drug-related items would also have uncovered the firearms, negating the need to suppress them under the inevitable discovery doctrine. according to which exclusions of objects due to illegal searches and seizures have no effect. apply to material which would inevitably have been discovered by legal means.

In rejecting this argument, the decision states that the government has the burden of proof regarding this doctrine and that it has failed to adequately discuss this doctrine in its documents and has “denied any reliance” on this doctrine. doctrine during the pleadings.

The decision concludes by summarizing that the seizure of Elmore's home was unreasonable under the third and fourth McArthur standards and that, for this reason, firearms must be suppressed from evidence in Elmore's case.

Sheriff Mike Le Roux and the U.S. Attorney's Office, which represented ACSO in the case, both declined to comment on the decision.

[email protected]