Page 40 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat
P. 40
Daniels moved to suppress the motel-search Daniels’s alleged co-conspirators, Joppa Jackson
evidence, arguing that no exigency supported the and James. At the close of the Government’s case
warrantless search. The district court conducted a in chief, Daniels moved for judgment of acquittal,
suppression hearing. Several DEA agents testified which the court denied. Daniels submitted several
regarding the knock-and-talk and resulting search. exhibits to the jury, but he did not testify in his
Pertinently, DEA Agent Francisco Del Valle own defense or call any witnesses to testify. The
testified that he had heard the toilet flush while jury found Daniels guilty of all three counts. The
Agent Greaves was knocking on the motel-room court sentenced Daniels to 240 months’
door. Daniels had the opportunity to cross- imprisonment as to all three counts, to be served
examine each of the Government’s witnesses. concurrently, and ten years of supervised release.
Daniels appealed.
Daniels also attempted to subpoena Agent Moran
to have him testify at the hearing. At the time, First, Daniels challenges the district court’s denial
Moran was under investigation for misconduct, of his motion to suppress the evidence from the
and he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights. motel-room search.
Although the court did not require Moran to
“The exclusionary rule allows a defendant to
testify, it allowed Daniels’s counsel to explain
suppress the evidentiary fruits of a violation of his
what he wanted to ask Moran.
Fourth Amendment rights” to be free of
The district court denied Daniels’s motion to unreasonable searches and seizures.5 Although
suppress, holding that he didn’t have standing to “searches and seizures inside a home without a
challenge the motel-room search because there warrant are presumptively unreasonable,” an
was no evidence indicating he intended to stay officer may search a person’s property if “‘the
overnight. And even if Daniels had standing, the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law
Fourth Amendment’s exigency exception enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless
permitted the search. The flushing sounds gave the search is objectively reasonable.” A valid
officers “probable cause to believe that there was exigency exists when an officer believes that
evidence of criminal activity in the room, and that evidence is being destroyed—although an officer
the evidence was being destroyed.” “may not rely on the need to prevent destruction
of evidence when that exigency was ‘created’ or
In preparation for trial, the Government filed a
‘manufactured’ by the conduct of the police.” In
motion in limine to preclude Daniels from
other words, an officer may not “engag[e] or
attacking the credibility of its witnesses based on
threaten[] to engage in conduct that violates the
Agent Moran’s alleged misconduct. The
Fourth Amendment” in order to create an
Government asked the court to prohibit Daniels
exigency justifying warrantless entry.
from “[i]nflaming the [j]ury” by referencing the
investigation during trial, arguing that it was Assuming without deciding the issue of standing,
irrelevant. The district court granted the motion, we will first address whether there was an
finding Moran’s alleged misconduct “unrelated to exigency justifying the search. To do so, we use
the matter at hand.” a non-exhaustive five-factor test:
The case went before a jury. The Government 3
called twelve witnesses, among them Agents
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount
Greaves and Treigle (the New Orleans police
of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) the
officers involved in the May 4 arrest) and
reasonable belief that contraband is about to be
36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
