United States v. Dywan Conley

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2282
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Dywan Lamar Conley
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: February 16, 2023
Filed: June 6, 2023
____________
Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
A handgun was found in Dywan Conley’s jacket pocket while he was being
treated in a hospital emergency room for a gunshot wound. After the district court1
denied his motion to suppress, Conley conditionally pleaded guilty to possessing a
1
The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable
Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
firearm after having been convicted of a felony. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2).2 He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and we
affirm.
I.
In the early morning of April 15, 2021, Conley suffered a gunshot wound to
his leg and asked a man to “run him to the hospital.” Conley was dropped off at the
emergency room of the Hennepin County Medical Center (HCMC) in downtown
Minneapolis, where emergency room staff promptly placed him on a gurney and
moved him to a stabilization room. Once there, medical staff discovered a bullet
hole in Conley’s left thigh and immediately prepared to treat what appeared to be a
potentially life-threatening injury. The staff asked Conley if they could remove his
clothes and shoes, explaining that they needed to assess the full extent of his injuries,
but Conley refused.3 Over the next five minutes, medical staff urged Conley to
cooperate and stressed the gravity of his condition. A nurse told Conley that the
bullet could have traveled to his neck, risking paralysis. And a doctor explained to
him that he could be suffering from internal bleeding and needed to be treated “fast,”
as he was “getting closer to dying.”
Conley was sitting upright on his gurney during these initial encounters. An
HCMC “protection officer”—a security officer employed directly by the hospital—
soon approached Conley, placed a hand on him, and attempted to guide Conley into
a more recumbent position. Conley yelled in protest, kicked his feet, and tried to get
off the gurney, prompting the protection officer and two of his colleagues to hold
Conley down with their hands and bodies. As Conley yelled “I don’t want to! No!
2
The former 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) has since been amended and recodified at
§ 924(a)(8).
3
The events described here were captured by body cameras worn by law
enforcement officers, who were on the scene to provide security to HCMC staff and,
later, to question Conley about the incident that resulted in his gunshot wound.
-2-
No! Y’all can’t make me do nothing,” a nurse administered two injections of
medication into his right leg.
The protection officers continued to restrain Conley while medical staff
provided treatment. One of the officers, who had his elbow and forearm pressed
against Conley’s body, then summoned a sheriff’s deputy standing nearby 4 and told
the deputy that Conley was “strapped,” which the deputy understood to mean that
Conley was carrying a firearm. The deputy ordered medical staff to step away from
the gurney, immediately began to search Conley’s person, and within seconds found
a handgun in Conley’s jacket pocket. This discovery occurred less than two minutes
after the protection officers first restrained Conley.
Conley was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). He moved to suppress evidence of the
handgun found in his jacket pocket, arguing that it was the fruit of an
unconstitutional seizure by the HCMC protection officers. Following an evidentiary
hearing, the magistrate judge recommended that Conley’s motion be denied. And
the district court, over Conley’s objections, adopted that recommendation “in its
entirety.” The district court concluded that the HCMC protection officers
effectuated a seizure under the Fourth Amendment when they restrained Conley to
the gurney, but that the seizure was not objectively unreasonable “under the totality
of [the] circumstances.” The district court alternatively concluded that, even if the
protection officers’ seizure had been unlawful, suppressing the handgun found in
Conley’s jacket pocket was unwarranted because doing so “would not effectuate the
exclusionary rule’s purpose of deterring future” Fourth Amendment violations.
4
The sheriff’s deputy was on duty at HCMC that morning as part of the
Hospital Sheriff’s Enforcement Unit, which “works in partnership with” HCMC
security “to provide a safe and secure environment for patients, visitors, and staff.”
The deputy had gone back to the stabilization room where Conley was being treated
“to make sure that . . . the scene [was] safe.”
-3-
Conley entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the
denial of his motion to suppress. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The district court
sentenced Conley to 60 months of imprisonment followed by three years of
supervised release. He now appeals.
II.
“A mixed standard of review applies to the denial of a motion to suppress
evidence.” United States v. Harris, 55 F.4th 575, 580 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting United
States v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1013, 1015 (8th Cir. 2015)). We review the district
court’s factual findings for clear error and the “ultimate conclusion of whether the
Fourth Amendment was violated” de novo. Id. (quoting Williams, 777 F.3d at
1015). “Reversal is warranted ‘only if the district court’s decision is unsupported
by substantial evidence, based on an erroneous interpretation of applicable law, or,
based on the entire record, it is clear a mistake was made.’” United States v. Stephen,
984 F.3d 625, 628 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Harper, 466 F.3d 634,
643 (8th Cir. 2006)). And “[w]e may affirm the district court’s Fourth Amendment
decision on any basis supported by the record.” United States v. Harris, 747 F.3d
1013, 1016 n.3 (8th Cir. 2014).
Conley argues on appeal that because the HCMC protection officers’ restraint
of him in the stabilization room amounted to an unlawful seizure in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, evidence of the handgun found in his jacket pocket must be
suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. When an
unreasonable search or seizure yields incriminating evidence, the exclusionary rule,
“when applicable, forbids the use of” such “improperly obtained evidence at trial.”
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009).
The government argues as a threshold matter that the Fourth Amendment does
not apply to the HCMC protection officers’ conduct here. But see Ferguson v. City
-4-
of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 76 (2001) (concluding that staff at a state hospital “are
government actors, subject to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment”); Buckley v.
Hennepin County, 9 F.4th 757, 761–62 (8th Cir. 2021) (applying a Fourth
Amendment reasonableness standard to HCMC paramedics’ placement of a patient
on a “medical transport hold”). However, we need not resolve the extent to which
such hospital security officers are subject to the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions.
Assuming that the HCMC protection officers’ restraint of Conley amounted to a
seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we turn to the question of whether that seizure
was lawful. Conley does not challenge the lawfulness of the search for the handgun
he was carrying, which a sheriff’s deputy performed immediately after learning that
Conley was likely armed. Cf. United States v. Henderson, 553 F.3d 1163, 1165 (8th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (concluding that “exigent circumstances justified” efforts by
police officers “to secure,” amidst “highly volatile” circumstances, a firearm they
knew to be in a defendant’s house). And whether Conley’s separate constitutional
right to refuse unwanted medical treatment was violated is also not before us. 5 See
Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 278 (1990). Instead, we must
determine whether the approximately two-minute physical restraint of Conley that
immediately preceded the discovery of the handgun in his jacket pocket was
objectively unreasonable. See Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989, 1003 (2021) (“The
Fourth Amendment does not forbid all or even most seizures—only unreasonable
ones.”).
Whether a particular seizure was reasonable is “generally assessed by
carefully weighing ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth
Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged
5
Conley suggests in his brief that Minnesota statutes governing emergency
medical holds ordered by healthcare professionals for persons with mental illness or
chemical dependency have some bearing on the reasonableness of the HCMC
protection officers’ seizure of him in the stabilization room. There is no indication
in the record that these statutes applied to the circumstances here. And in any event,
it is well settled that state law does not “define the contours of the Fourth
Amendment.” Rose v. City of Mulberry, 533 F.3d 678, 680 (8th Cir. 2008).
-5-
to justify the intrusion.’” County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420, 427
(2017) (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8 (1985)). We recently explained
that “all seizures—whether brief detentions or arrests—done for noninvestigatory
purposes are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness balancing test.” 6
Graham v. Barnette, 5 F.4th 872, 885 (8th Cir. 2021). Under the balancing test, “the
greater the intrusion on a citizen, the greater the justification required for that
intrusion to be reasonable.” Id. Noninvestigatory seizures are reasonable if they are
“based on specific articulable facts” and the “governmental interest” in effectuating
the seizure in question “outweighs the individual’s interest in being free from
arbitrary government interference.” Harris, 747 F.3d at 1017 (cleaned up) (quoting
Samuelson v. City of New Ulm, 455 F.3d 871, 877 (8th Cir. 2006)); see Graham,
5 F.4th at 885 (“This balancing test, ever attuned to the nature and quality of the
intrusion, comports with the Supreme Court’s instruction that reasonableness is the
touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.”). A noninvestigatory seizure’s “scope,”
moreover, must be “carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose of the initial detention.”
Harris, 747 F.3d at 1019.
Applying this balancing test here, 7 we conclude that the HCMC protection
officers’ seizure of Conley in the stabilization room was objectively reasonable
6
State actors act in a noninvestigatory capacity when their conduct is “totally
divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the
violation of a criminal statute.” Harris, 747 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Cady v.
Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973)). Here, the district court found that the
HCMC protection officers did not have “any reason to believe that Conley was
involved in any illegal activity” and that they restrained him for the noninvestigatory
purpose of “effectuat[ing] medical care,” which neither party disputes.
7
Conley, relying on our decision in Graham v. Barnette, argues that we should
evaluate the reasonableness of his restraint under a probable cause standard. See 5
F.4th at 886. In Graham, we held that “only probable cause that a person poses an
emergent danger—that is, one calling for prompt action—to herself or others can tip
the scales of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness balancing test in favor of the
government when it arrests an individual for a mental-health evaluation.” Id.
Conley, in contrast, was subject to a two-minute restraint in the emergency room
-6-
under the circumstances. We start with “the government’s interest in the officers’
actions.” Harris, 747 F.3d at 1018. A noninvestigatory seizure can be justified by
an officer’s reasonable belief “that an emergency exists requiring the officer’s
attention.” Graham, 5 F.4th at 885; cf. Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1599
(2021) (reiterating that warrantless intrusions onto private property are reasonable if
there is a “need to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect
an occupant from imminent injury” (cleaned up)). Here, the government
underscores that the protection officers seized Conley “to allow medical staff to
safely and effectively evaluate his gunshot wound and potentially render life-saving
medical treatment.” And the district court’s factual findings establish that the
officers were confronted with what appeared to be a medical emergency requiring
an immediate response: Conley had a fresh gunshot wound in his thigh; medical staff
worried that Conley was suffering from internal bleeding that needed immediate
attention; and Conley’s refusal to remove his clothes prevented medical staff from
providing potentially life-saving treatment.
Additionally, once Conley became agitated on the gurney, the protection
officers had a strong interest in ensuring the safety of the medical staff trying to treat
him. See Graham, 5 F.4th at 885 (“[W]hen officers act in a noninvestigatory
capacity, they may briefly detain an individual to ensure her safety and that of the
officers or the public . . . .”). Indeed, the need to preserve a safe environment is
particularly acute in a hospital emergency room, where medical professionals are
expected to make quick decisions while treating patients who present with urgent
medical needs. And Conley’s conduct forced the protection officers to “make a split-
second decision in the face of an emergency”—namely, “to either stand idly by,
permitting a dangerous situation to continue uninterrupted, or act, addressing the
potential danger” in order to protect medical staff. Harris, 747 F.3d at 1017. When
after voluntarily arriving at the hospital with a gunshot wound. And Graham itself
relied on the same balancing test we apply here, concluding that under the
circumstances of a mental-health arrest in a person’s home, “only probable cause
constitutes a sufficient ‘governmental interest’ to outweigh a person’s ‘interest in
freedom.’” Id. (quoting Harris, 747 F.3d at 1017).
-7-
faced with such circumstances, “we have reasoned that officers are expected to act.”
Id. at 1017–18.
Weighed against these interests is Conley’s “right to be free from government
intrusion.” Id. at 1018. But Conley voluntarily brought himself to HCMC’s
emergency room to seek treatment for a gunshot wound that medical staff considered
potentially life-threatening. Given those circumstances, Conley should have
reasonably expected the sort of intrusions that are inherent to the provision of
emergency medical care, including the removal of one’s clothes to facilitate
treatment and—if compelled by the need to maintain a safe environment—even
temporary physical restraint. Cf. Buckley, 9 F.4th at 762–63 (concluding that “[i]t
was not objectively unreasonable” for HCMC paramedics to sedate a patient “who
needed medical intervention” and whom the paramedics perceived to be
“dangerously agitated”). To the extent Conley’s reluctance to receive medical
treatment factors into our reasonableness analysis, it arguably would have been
unreasonable for HCMC staff to have allowed Conley to leave the emergency room
without first taking steps to at least stabilize him. See id. at 762 (“[P]aramedics
would face a kind of Catch-22[:] treat the [patient] or don’t treat him, but face a
lawsuit either way.” (cleaned up) (quoting Thompson v. Cope, 900 F.3d 414, 423
(7th Cir. 2018)).
Finally, the record indicates that the “scope” of the protection officers’ seizure
of Conley “was carefully tailored” to address the circumstances at hand. Harris, 747
F.3d at 1019. Conley was restrained by the officers’ hands and bodies only after he
“kick[ed] his feet” and “attempted to get off the gurney.” Cf. id. (noting that
“officers’ decision to handcuff” a defendant “was reasonable considering the
circumstances confronting” them (cleaned up)). And that seizure lasted less than
two minutes before the deputy sheriff found the handgun in Conley’s jacket pocket.
-8-
Given the specific facts before us, we conclude that the HCMC protection
officers’ seizure of Conley in the stabilization room was not objectively
unreasonable and thus did not violate Conley’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.8
III.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
8
Because we find no Fourth Amendment violation, we need not address the
district court’s alternative conclusion regarding the applicability of the exclusionary
rule.
-9-