United States v. Willie Gene Davi , 598 F.3d 1259 ( 2010 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 11, 2010
No. 08-16654
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00248-CR-W-N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE GENE DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 11, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:
Police arrested Willie Gene Davis after a traffic stop and searched the car in
which he was riding as permitted by our decision in United States v. Gonzalez, 71
F.3d 819, 825 (11th Cir. 1996). Based on evidence obtained from that search,
Davis was convicted for the unlawful possession of a firearm. During the
pendency of his appeal to this court, the Supreme Court overturned Gonzalez in
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). We now decide whether the Fourth
Amendment’s exclusionary rule requires the suppression of evidence obtained
during the search.
I
During a routine traffic stop in 2007, Sergeant Curtis Miller asked Willie
Davis, the vehicle’s only passenger, for his name. After a pause, Davis identified
himself as “Ernest Harris.” Miller could smell alcohol on Davis’s breath, and he
noticed Davis fidgeting with his jacket pockets. When the driver of the vehicle
failed her field sobriety tests, Miller asked Davis to step out of the car.
As Davis exited the vehicle, he started to take off his jacket. Miller told him
to leave it on, but Davis removed the jacket anyway and left it behind on the seat.
Miller checked Davis for weapons and took him to the rear of the vehicle, where
he asked a crowd of bystanders whether Davis’s name was really Ernest Harris.
2
The bystanders gave Davis’s true name, which Miller verified with the police
dispatcher, using Davis’s birth date.
Miller arrested Davis for giving a false name and placed him, handcuffed, in
the back of his patrol car. The driver of the vehicle was also arrested, handcuffed,
and placed in a separate patrol car. Once the vehicle’s occupants had been
secured, Miller searched it and found a revolver in one of Davis’s jacket pockets.
After his indictment for possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1), Davis filed a motion to suppress the gun. He conceded that our
precedent required the court to deny his motion, but he moved to preserve the
issue for appeal in light of the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Arizona v.
Gant, 128 S. Ct. 1443 (2008). The district court denied his motion on the ground
that Sergeant Miller had found the gun during a valid search incident to arrest.1
Following a jury trial, Davis was convicted and sentenced to 220 months in prison.
II
In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981), the Supreme Court held
“that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an
1
The district court also concluded that police would inevitably have discovered the gun
during an inventory search. Given our holding with respect to the exclusionary rule’s good-faith
exception, we find it unnecessary to address the inventory-search issue.
3
automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the
passenger compartment of that automobile.” In so holding, the Court purported to
apply the limiting rationale of its decision in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752(1969), which had “established that a search incident to an arrest may not stray
beyond the area within the immediate control of the arrestee.” Belton, 453 U.S. at
460. In its attempt to craft a “workable rule,” however, the Court assumed “that
articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an
automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within ‘the area into which
an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary [item].’” Id.(alteration in original) (quoting Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763).
We, like most other courts, had read Belton to mean that police could search
a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest regardless of the occupant’s actual
control over the passenger compartment. See, e.g., Gonzalez, 71 F.3d at 825. As
the Supreme Court later explained, its opinion in Belton was “widely understood
to allow a vehicle search incident to the arrest of a recent occupant even if there
[was] no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the
search.” Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1718.
In Arizona v. Gant, the Court rejected that prevailing reading of Belton:
“We now know that articles inside the passenger compartment are rarely within
4
the area into which an arrestee might reach, and blind adherence to Belton’s faulty
assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches.” 129 S. Ct. at 1723(quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court replaced our interpretation of
Belton with the following rule: “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent
occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger
compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle
contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Id.Davis now relies on Gant to argue that the search after his arrest violated
the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, that the gun recovered from his jacket
should have been suppressed. The government responds that we should not
retroactively apply the exclusionary rule to searches conducted in good-faith
reliance on our precedent.
The retroactivity of a constitutional decision and the scope of the good-faith
exception to the exclusionary rule are questions of law that we review de novo.
Glock v. Singletary, 65 F.3d 878, 882 (11th Cir. 1995); United States v. Martin,
297 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2002).
III
Although the Supreme Court’s retroactivity doctrine has a complicated
history, see United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537, 542–48 (1982), it is now
5
settled that “a decision of [the Supreme] Court construing the Fourth Amendment
is to be applied retroactively to all convictions that were not yet final at the time
the decision was rendered,” id. at 562, “with no exception for cases in which the
new rule constitutes a ‘clear break’ with the past,” Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S.
314, 328 (1987).2 Accord Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir.
2003) (“[F]or newly announced rules governing criminal prosecutions, the
Supreme Court has completely rejected both pure prospectivity, which occurs
where a court gives a newly announced rule no retroactive effect, and modified
prospectivity, which occurs where a court applies a newly announced rule
retroactively on a case by case basis.”). Because Davis’s case was pending on
direct appeal when Gant was decided, the rule announced in that decision applies
to his case.
There can be no serious dispute that the search here violated Davis’s Fourth
Amendment rights as defined in Gant. First, both he and the car’s driver had been
handcuffed and secured in separate police cruisers before Sergeant Miller
performed the search. Second, Davis was arrested for “an offense for which police
could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment,” Gant, 129 S. Ct.
2“Final” in this context refers to any “case in which a judgment of conviction has been
rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or
a petition for certiorari finally denied.” Griffith, 479 U.S. at 321 n.6.
6
at 1719, because Miller had already verified Davis’s identity when he arrested him
for giving a false name. Gant makes clear that neither evidentiary nor officer-
safety concerns justify a vehicle search under these circumstances.
Our conclusion that the search violated Davis’s constitutional rights does
not, however, dictate the outcome of this case. “Whether the exclusionary
sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case . . . is ‘an issue separate from
the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke
the rule were violated by police conduct.’” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897,
906 (1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 (1983)). Consequently,
we must still decide whether the fruits of the illegal search should be suppressed.
We are not the first court of appeals to consider this question, but the other
circuits have split on the issue. In the aftermath of Gant, the Ninth and Tenth
Circuits have reached opposite conclusions as to the exclusionary rule’s
application in cases like this one. Compare United States v. Gonzalez, 578 F.3d
1130 (9th Cir. 2009) (applying the exclusionary rule to a pre-Gant search), with
United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009) (relying on the rule’s
good-faith exception and refusing to require the suppression of evidence), cert.
denied, No. 09-402 (Mar. 1, 2010). Similarly, before Gant, the Fifth Circuit
refused to apply the exclusionary rule when police had relied in good faith on
7
prior circuit precedent, United States v. Jackson, 825 F.2d 853, 866 (5th Cir. 1987)
(en banc), but the Seventh Circuit expressed skepticism about applying the rule’s
good-faith exception when police had relied solely on caselaw in conducting a
search, United States v. 15324 County Highway E., 332 F.3d 1070, 1076 (7th Cir.
2003).3 We now enter the fray and hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply
when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on our well-
settled precedent, even if that precedent is subsequently overturned.
A. Retroactivity and the Exclusionary Rule
In United States v. Gonzalez, 578 F.3d 1130, the Ninth Circuit reversed the
denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of Gant, even though
the search at issue had occurred before Gant was decided. The basis for the
court’s decision was that retroactivity doctrine required not only the application of
Gant’s new substantive rule, but also the application of the same remedy.4
3
See also United States v. Brunette, 256 F.3d 14, 19–20 (1st Cir. 2001) (applying the
good-faith exception to approve police reliance on a defective warrant that was issued when
intercircuit caselaw governing the sufficiency of the warrant application was “unclear”).
4
Justice Alito’s dissent in Gant appears to make a similar assumption. See 129 S. Ct at
1726 (Alito, J., dissenting) (“The Court’s decision will cause the suppression of evidence
gathered in many searches carried out in good-faith reliance on well-settled case law . . . .”). But
this assumption conflicts with the Court’s statement that “the doctrine of qualified immunity will
shield officers from liability for searches conducted in reasonable reliance” on a broad reading of
Belton. Id. at 1722 n.11 (Stevens, J.) (obiter dictum). Because the Court has explained that
qualified-immunity doctrine employs “‘the same standard of objective reasonableness’” that
defines the contours of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, Groh v. Ramirez, 540
U.S. 551, 565 n.8 (2004) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 344 (1986)), the majority’s
8
Because the defendant in Gant had benefitted from the exclusionary rule, the court
explained, “‘basic norms of constitutional adjudication’” required the suppression
of evidence in all non-final cases involving similarly situated defendants. Id. at
1132 (quoting Griffith, 479 U.S. at 322–23).
We do not find this reasoning persuasive. The Ninth Circuit’s decision
turned, in large part, on its assumption that the Supreme Court’s affirmance in
Gant endorsed the manner in which the state court had applied the exclusionary
rule below. See Gonzalez, 578 F.3d at 1132–33. But the Court’s order granting
Arizona’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Gant explicitly limited the scope of
review to the constitutionality of the search. 128 S. Ct. 1443. The Court’s
holdings are confined to the questions on which it grants certiorari, Sup. Ct. R.
14.1(a); Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 535–36 (1992), and in Gant
neither the order granting certiorari nor the Court’s subsequent opinion discusses
the exclusionary rule at all.5 In other words, the Court did not express approval of
the exclusionary rule’s application below merely by affirming the state court’s
statement fully supports our extension of the good-faith exception to cases involving reliance on
well-settled precedent.
5
In addition, the briefs and oral-argument transcript in Gant reveal that the State never
argued for the application of the good-faith exception.
9
judgment.6 Before the Supreme Court, Gant concerned the meaning of Belton, not
the scope of the exclusionary rule.
We also disagree with the Ninth Circuit’s contention that by declining to
suppress evidence in cases like this we would fail to “fully appl[y]” Gant, thereby
“violat[ing] ‘the integrity of judicial review’ by turning the court into . . . a
legislative body announcing new rules but not applying them.” Gonzalez, 578
F.3d at 1132 (quoting Griffith, 479 U.S. at 314). Our conclusion that Sergeant
Miller’s search violated Davis’s constitutional rights does fully apply Gant to the
facts of this case. See United States v. Peoples, 2009 WL 3586564, at *4 (W.D.
Mich. Oct. 29, 2009). We consider constitutional violations and remedies
separately in the Fourth Amendment context, Leon, 468 U.S. at 906, and the
Supreme Court has refused to tie the retroactivity of new Fourth Amendment rules
to the suppression of evidence, see id. at 912 n.9. As the Tenth Circuit observed
in McCane, “[t]he issue before us . . . is not whether the Court’s ruling in Gant
applies to this case, it is instead a question of the proper remedy upon application
of Gant to this case.” 573 F.3d at 1045 n.5.
6
The language of affirmance in Gant reads only: “The Arizona Supreme Court correctly
held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State
Supreme Court is affirmed.” 129 S. Ct. at 1724.
10
B. Good Faith and the Exclusionary Rule
“[T]he exclusionary rule is not an individual right”; it “applies only where it
‘result[s] in appreciable deterrence,’” and “the benefits of deterrence must
outweigh the costs.” Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695, 700 (2009)
(quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 909) (alteration in original).7 Whether to suppress
evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search thus “turns on the culpability of
the police and the potential of exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct.” Id. at
698. Because the exclusionary rule “cannot be expected, and should not be
applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity,” the Supreme
Court has established an exception to the rule’s application for cases in which the
officers who conducted an illegal search “acted in the objectively reasonable belief
that their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 919.
The Court has gradually expanded this good-faith exception to
accommodate objectively reasonable police reliance on: subsequently invalidated
search warrants, Leon, 468 U.S. 897; subsequently invalidated statutes, Illinois v.
Krull, 480 U.S. 430 (1987); inaccurate court records, Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1(1995); and negligently maintained police records, Herring, 129 S. Ct. 695. In
7
“The principal cost of applying the rule is, of course, letting guilty and possibly
dangerous defendants go free—something that ‘offends basic concepts of the criminal justice
system.’” Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 701 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 908).
11
each of its decisions expanding the exception, the Court has concluded that the
unlawful police conduct at issue was neither “sufficiently deliberate that exclusion
[could] meaningfully deter it” nor “sufficiently culpable that such deterrence
[would be] worth the price paid by the justice system.” Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 702.
In this case, Sergeant Miller did not deliberately violate Davis’s
constitutional rights. Nor can he be held responsible for the unlawfulness of the
search he conducted. At the time of the search, we adhered to the broad reading of
Belton that the Supreme Court later disavowed in Gant, and a search performed in
accordance with our erroneous interpretation of Fourth Amendment law is not
culpable police conduct. Law enforcement officers in this circuit are entitled to
rely on our decisions, and “[p]enalizing the officer for the [court’s] error, rather
than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment
violations,” Leon, 468 U.S. at 921. As the Tenth Circuit explained, the general
“purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement
officers, not other entities,” and there would be little “significant deterrent effect
in excluding evidence based upon the mistakes of those uninvolved in or
attenuated from law enforcement.” McCane, 573 F.3d at 1044.
Because the exclusionary rule is justified solely by its potential to deter
police misconduct, suppressing evidence obtained from an unlawful search is
12
inappropriate when the offending officer reasonably relied on well-settled
precedent.8 This conclusion is consistent with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in
Leon, in which it declined to require the suppression of evidence obtained in
reliance on a facially sufficient warrant issued by a neutral magistrate judge:
First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct
rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Second,
there exists no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are
inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that
lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme
sanction of exclusion. Third, and most important, we discern no
basis, and are offered none, for believing that exclusion of evidence
seized pursuant to a warrant will have a significant deterrent effect on
the issuing judge or magistrate.
468 U.S. at 916 (footnote omitted). We see no meaningful distinction between a
magistrate judge’s error in applying Supreme Court precedent to a probable-cause
determination and our error in applying that same precedent to the question of a
warrantless search’s constitutionality. The exclusionary rule must be “restricted to
those situations in which its remedial purpose is effectively advanced,” Krull, 480
U.S. at 347, and suppressing evidence obtained in reliance on well-settled
precedent would be no more effective in deterring police misconduct than would
8
We recognize that applying the good-faith exception under these circumstances may
weaken criminal defendants’ incentive to urge “new” rules on the courts, but the exclusionary
rule is designed to deter misconduct, not to foster the development of Fourth Amendment law.
Cf. Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 700 n.2 (noting that the Court has rejected a conception of the rule that
“would exclude evidence even where deterrence does not justify doing so”).
13
suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a judge’s probable-cause
determination.
C. Mistakes of Law and the Good-Faith Exception
With this decision, we join the Fifth and Tenth Circuits in refusing to apply
the exclusionary rule when the police have reasonably relied on clear and well-
settled precedent. See McCane, 573 F.3d at 1045 (“[T]his court declines to apply
the exclusionary rule when law enforcement officers act in objectively reasonable
reliance upon the settled case law of a United States Court of Appeals.”); Jackson,
825 F.2d at 866 (“[T]he exclusionary rule should not be applied to searches which
relied on Fifth Circuit law prior to the change of that law . . . .”). We stress,
however, that our precedent on a given point must be unequivocal before we will
suspend the exclusionary rule’s operation. We have not forgotten the importance
of the “incentive to err on the side of constitutional behavior,” and we do not mean
to encourage police to adopt a “‘let’s-wait-until-it’s-decided approach’” to
“unsettled” questions of Fourth Amendment law. Johnson, 457 U.S. at 561(quoting Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 277 (1969) (Fortas, J., dissenting)).
The clarity of the Belton rule we followed before Gant is thus critical to our
decision today. Although the Court in Gant insisted that Belton could have been
interpreted in either of two ways, it also acknowledged that Belton was premised
14
on a “faulty assumption” to which the doctrine of stare decisis did not require
adherence. Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1719, 1723. Indeed, we, like most of the other
courts of appeals, treated the broader, permissive reading of Belton as well-settled.
It is precisely in situations like this, when the permissibility of a search was clear
under precedent that has since been overturned, that applying the good-faith
exception makes sense. When the police conduct a search in reliance on a bright-
line judicial rule, the courts have already effectively determined the search’s
constitutionality, and applying the exclusionary rule on the basis of a judicial error
cannot deter police misconduct. Cf. Krull, 480 U.S. at 360 n.17. (“[T]he question
whether the exclusionary rule is applicable in a particular context depends
significantly upon the actors who are making the relevant decision that the rule is
designed to influence.”).
Our decision here is therefore consistent with our holding in United States
v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir. 2003), that “the good faith
exception to the exclusionary rule . . . should not be extended to excuse a
vehicular search based on an officer’s mistake of law” (emphasis added). The
justifications for the good-faith exception do not extend to situations in which
police officers have interpreted ambiguous precedent or relied on their own
extrapolations from existing caselaw. When the police rely on novel extensions of
15
our precedent, they engage in the sort of legal analysis better reserved to judicial
officers, whose “detached scrutiny . . . is a more reliable safeguard against
improper searches than the hurried judgment of a law enforcement officer engaged
in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,” United States v.
Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 9 (1977) (quotation marks and citation omitted), quoted in
Leon, 468 U.S. at 913–14.9 When law enforcement officers rely on precedent to
resolve legal questions as to which “[r]easonable minds . . . may differ,” Leon, 468
U.S. at 914, the exclusionary rule is well-tailored to hold them accountable for
their mistakes.10
Although an officer’s mistake of law cannot provide objectively reasonable
grounds for a search, Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d at 1279, the mistake of law here
was not attributable to the police. On the contrary, the governing law in this
circuit unambiguously allowed Sergeant Miller to search the car. Relying on a
court of appeals’ well-settled and unequivocal precedent is analogous to relying
on a statute, cf. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, or a facially sufficient warrant, cf. Leon, 468
U.S. 897—not to personally misinterpreting the law.
9
Unlike police officers, “[j]udges and magistrates are not adjuncts to the law enforcement
team.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 917.
10
Because reasonable minds often differ when considering merely persuasive precedents,
our extension of the good-faith exception is necessarily limited to situations in which the
published decisions of this court clearly dictated the constitutionality of a search.
16
In this case, Sergeant Miller performed a search that our contemporaneous
interpretation of Belton clearly permitted. Had the Supreme Court not
subsequently rejected that interpretation in Gant, we undoubtedly would have
upheld the search as constitutional. Because the search was objectively reasonable
under our then-binding precedent, suppressing the gun found in Davis’s jacket
would serve no deterrent purpose. In accordance with our holding that the good-
faith exception allows the use of evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on well-
settled precedent, we refuse to apply the exclusionary rule here. Davis’s
conviction is
AFFIRMED.
17