United States v. Lee Voyd Merricks

Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 1 of 10
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12597
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:12-cr-14061-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEE VOYD MERRICKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 17, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lee Voyd Merricks appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a convicted felon. We affirm.
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 2 of 10
I. BACKGROUND
On July 19, 2012, St. Lucie County Deputy Sheriff Ryan Register and Fort
Pierce Police Officer Steven Sobon were on routine patrol in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Before 8:00 p.m., Deputy Register observed Merricks riding his bicycle on the
wrong side of the road. The officers were traveling westbound, while Merricks
was riding eastbound. The officers and Merricks passed each other, and Deputy
Register recognized Merricks from prior investigations. The officers made a U-
turn so they could conduct a traffic stop of Merricks for violating Florida’s bicycle
regulations. 1 When Merricks saw the officers turn around, he began pedaling
faster. The officers activated their lights and followed Merricks to a private
residence, where Merricks exited the bicycle and walked through a gate. The
officers ordered Merricks to stop, but Merricks ignored their orders.
Merricks attempted to open the front door of the residence, but the door was
locked. Both officers followed Merricks onto the property. When Merricks saw
Deputy Register approach, Merricks reached into his waistband and threw a small,
dark object into a carport near a stack of buckets. Merricks then began beating on
the front door with both hands. Following a brief struggle, the officers took
Merricks into custody. The officers searched Merricks and found an empty
1
In Florida, “[a]ny person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal
speed of traffic . . . shall ride in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for
bicycle use, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway,” except under
certain conditions. Fla. Stat. § 316.2065(5)(a).
2
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 3 of 10
magazine clip in his pocket. They also searched the area where Merricks had
thrown the dark object and found a black firearm.
On September 13, 2012, a federal grand jury charged Merricks with
possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). Merricks pled not guilty and moved to
suppress the firearm and ammunition found by the police officers. He argued he
was seized illegally under the Fourth Amendment. The government responded the
police had probable cause to arrest Merricks, who lacked standing to challenge the
seizure of the firearm found on private property.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the evidence showed Robert Reed
owned and lived in the private residence, where Merricks was arrested. Deputy
Register testified he knew Reed lived in the house and Merricks lived elsewhere.
Reed testified he had known Merricks, since Merricks was a little boy, and
Merricks went to Reed’s house daily. Merricks had open access to the house and
had a key. In addition, Merricks had stayed overnight at Reed’s house in a guest
bedroom, but the last time Merricks had stayed overnight had been three weeks
prior to his arrest. Merricks did not pay rent or receive mail at Reed’s residence,
nor did he keep clothes there. Reed testified he allowed several other individuals
to stay overnight in the guest bedroom, when entertaining women.
3
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 4 of 10
Following the hearing, the magistrate judge entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending Merricks’s motion to suppress be
denied. The magistrate judge found the officers had probable cause to pursue
Merricks for committing a traffic violation. When Merricks failed to heed the
officers’ commands to stop, they had probable cause to arrest him for resisting an
officer without violence. Because Merricks lacked a reasonable expectation of
privacy in Reed’s property, the magistrate judge determined he lacked standing to
challenge the seizure of the firearm, which the officers had found in plain view.
The magistrate judge concluded the officers lawfully seized the ammunition clip
from Merricks during a search incident to his lawful arrest.
Over Merricks’s objections, the district judge adopted the R&R and denied
the motion to suppress. Merricks subsequently pled guilty to the sole indictment
crime, pursuant to a conditional plea agreement. Merricks reserved the right to
appeal the district judge’s denial of his motion to suppress. He specifically
reserved the right to appeal (1) whether the police officers had probable cause to
stop him, and (2) whether he had standing to contest the seizure of the firearm
found in the carport area of Reed’s home.
The district judge accepted the plea agreement and adjudicated Merricks
guilty of possessing a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The judge sentenced Merricks to 180
4
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 5 of 10
months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Merricks
argues the district judge erred by failing to suppress the firearm and empty
magazine clip discovered by the police officers. Consequently, he contends the
officers impermissibly conducted a warrantless search and seizure on the curtilage
of a private home, where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
II. DISCUSSION
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we assess the district
judge’s findings of fact for clear error and his application of law to those facts de
novo. United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256, 1274 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 134
S. Ct. 342 (2013). All facts are construed in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below. Id.The Fourth Amendment provides “[t]he right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “The reasonableness of a
seizure or arrest under the Fourth Amendment turns on the presence or absence of
probable cause.” United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1314 (11th Cir.
2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Probable cause to arrest
exists when law enforcement officials have facts and circumstances within their
knowledge sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that the suspect had committed
or was committing a crime.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
5
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 6 of 10
Because a custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment, “a search incident to the arrest requires no additional
justification.” United States v. Goddard, 312 F.3d 1360, 1364 (11th Cir. 2002).
The “capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends
upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a
legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” Minnesota v. Carter, 525
U.S. 83, 88, 119 S. Ct. 469, 473 (1998) (citation, internal quotation marks, and
ellipses omitted). Accordingly, a defendant has standing to challenge a search and
seizure only if the defendant “had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the
property when it was searched.” Gibson, 708 F.3d at 1276 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Warrantless searches and seizures inside a person’s home are presumptively
unreasonable. United States v. Franklin, 694 F.3d 1, 7 (11th Cir. 2012). The
curtilage of a home, “the private property immediately adjacent to a home, is
entitled to the same protection against unreasonable search and seizure as the home
itself.” United States v. Noriega, 676 F.3d 1252, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation,
internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). In some circumstances, “a
person may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house of someone else.”
Carter, 525 U.S. at 89, 119 S. Ct. at 473. For example, “an overnight guest in a
home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, but one who is merely
6
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 7 of 10
present with the consent of the householder may not.” Id. at 90, 119 S. Ct. at 473.
A defendant also may establish standing by demonstrating an unrestricted right of
occupancy or custody and control of the premises searched; ownership is not
required, but mere presence or even possession of a key is insufficient. United
States v. Sarda-Villa, 760 F.2d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir. 1985). The defendant bears
the burden of establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.
United States v. Harris, 526 F.3d 1334, 1338 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). When
an individual abandons contraband during a chase with law enforcement, he has no
expectation of privacy to challenge seizure of the property. United States v.
Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1117 (11th Cir. 2002).
Because Deputy Register and Officer Sobon personally observed Merricks
riding his bicycle on the wrong side of the road, in violation of Florida law, they
were permitted to pursue and detain him in order to give him a citation or a
warning. After Merricks realized the officers were following him with police
lights activated, he pedaled faster and entered Reed’s property. As Merricks was
walking through the gate of Reed’s home, he failed to heed the officers’ verbal
commands to stop. By that time, the officers had probable cause to arrest Merricks
for resisting or opposing the police without violence. 2 Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d at
2
Anyone who resists, obstructs, or opposes any law enforcement officer or other person
“legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution
7
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 8 of 10
1314 (recognizing probable cause to arrest exists, when officers have knowledge of
facts or circumstances to warrant a reasonable belief the suspect has committed or
was committing a crime).
Merricks argues the officers were prohibited from entering the property and
arresting him without a warrant, and the district judge erred by concluding he
lacked standing to challenge the warrantless entry onto the curtilage of the home.
This argument fails. At the time of his arrest, Merricks was not an overnight guest;
he had not stayed overnight at Reed’s house for at least three weeks. He did not
have an unrestricted right of custody or control over the residence. Sarda-Villa,
760 F.2d at 1236 (finding standing may be demonstrated through an unrestricted
right of occupancy). Although Merricks sometimes used one of the bedrooms, he
did not keep clothes in the room, and Reed permitted other individuals to use that
bedroom as well. Merricks did not receive mail at Reed’s home or pay rent. Even
though Merricks possessed a key to the house, possession of a key and mere
presence on Reed’s property is insufficient to establish he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. Sarda-Villa, 760 F.2d at 1236 (recognizing a defendant
cannot establish standing based solely on the possession of a key to an apartment).
of any duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree.” Fla. Stat. § 843.02.
8
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 9 of 10
Deputy Register knew Reed owned the residence, and Merricks had
provided another address as his residence. Merricks was “merely present with the
consent of the householder,” and Deputy Register and Officer Sobon were
permitted to enter the property without a warrant. Carter, 525 U.S. at 90, 119 S.
Ct. at 473. Merricks lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in Reed’s home
and the surrounding curtilage, and the officers were permitted to pursue him onto
Reed’s property without a warrant. The officers already had probable cause to
arrest Merricks for resisting arrest without violence. Because Merricks’s
warrantless arrest was lawful based on probable cause, the seizure of the empty
magazine clip incident to his arrest was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Goddard, 312 F.3d at 1364 (“Since the custodial arrest of a suspect based on
probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment, a search
incident to the arrest requires no additional justification.”).
Merricks also challenges the subsequent search of the carport area and
seizure of the firearm. Merricks lacks standing to challenge the search and seizure,
however, because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Reed’s
home and surrounding curtilage. Gibson, 708 F.3d at 1276 (recognizing a
defendant has standing to challenge a search and seizure only if he has a legitimate
expectation of privacy). Because he voluntarily abandoned it while being pursued
by law enforcement, Merricks also lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the
9
Case: 13-12597 Date Filed: 07/17/2014 Page: 10 of 10
firearm. Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1117 (concluding, when an individual abandons
contraband, he has no expectation of privacy to challenge seizure of the property).
Accordingly, the district judge did not err by denying Merricks’s motion to
suppress the firearm and the empty magazine.
AFFIRMED.
10