Youngstown Daily Legal News

Judges rule consensual search of parolee's home was lawful

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 31, 2015

Federal judges from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a warantless search of a parolee’s home was lawful because he gave consent prior to the search.

The three-judge panel recently affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that denied Darryl Lee’s motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his residence.

Like the trial court, the appellate judges determined that Lee consented to the search of his apartment, therefore rendering it lawful.

The factual background of the case stated that Lee was released from a Pennsylvania state correctional institution in April 2013 after serving time for aggravated assault with a firearm specification.

He then spent time in a therapeutic facility to help reintegrate him into society and was eventually placed on parole in Pennsylvania in August 2013.

The following month, Lee’s supervision was transferred to Ohio so that he could live with his girlfriend, Joshulen Harrison.

Ohio Adult Parole Authority Officer James Campana was assigned the case and met with Lee later that month to explain the conditions of his supervision, of which Lee signed a copy.

In December 2013, Lee was stopped and arrested for felony possession of heroin and cocaine.

He promptly reported the arrest to Campana and the two met shortly thereafter.

Campana advised Lee on how to proceed following his arrest and suggested that Lee seek help from a drug and alcohol treatment program, which Lee did.

Campana then conducted an unannounced home visit to ensure Lee was complying with his parole on Jan. 28, 2014. He said the visit did not raise any concerns.

The next day, however, he received a tip about Lee from a fellow parole officer, Robert O’Malley.

O’Malley stated that an off-duty Youngstown police officer had called him to report that while he was conducting security for an area apartment complex, the complex management indicated that one of its residents, Lee, had possible weapons going in and out of his apartment.

Without questioning the people who provided the tip or the management for the apartment complex, Campana sent another parole officer and two police officers to Lee’s apartment the following morning.

The group knocked on the door but received no response and Campana’s calls to Lee’s phone went unanswered.

Campana then called Harrison’s phone and she indicated that Lee was home but sleeping in the back room.

Harrison also stated that she was on her way home and she voluntarily let the officers in when she arrived, according to case summary.

Once in the apartment, the officers woke Lee, handcuffed him and patted him down for safety.

Campana then asked Lee, “Is there anything in this apartment that you should not have?” and Lee stated, “No. Go ahead and look.”

The parole officers then searched Lee’s apartment and found $8,800 in cash, hypodermic needles and plastic bags, and a 9mm handgun.

Lee was then arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing that the search of his apartment was unlawful.

The trial court denied that motion, finding that the search was consensual and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search.

Lee then entered a conditional guilty plea, was sentenced to 53 months in prison and appealed the denial of his suppression motion.

“We have grave doubts concerning the district court’s conclusion on reasonable suspicion, but because we agree with its conclusion on consent, we uphold the district court’s denial of Lee’s motion to suppress,” Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman wrote for the court.

Although Lee admitted that Harrison allowed the officers to enter the apartment, he stated that the officers’ failure to disclose the purpose of their visit negated her consent.

The circuit judges disagreed. They emphasized that the officers were in their uniforms and were plainly identifiable.

They also held that Harrison was authorized to grant the officers entry and did not find that the officers coerced her into doing so.

“We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Harrison validly consented to the officers’ entry,” Gilman stated.

Lee next argued that his consent to the search was invalid because the officers had illegally entered and had wrongfully handcuffed and frisked him prior to his consent.

“Because we have found no error in the district court’s conclusion that the officers’ entry was legal, Lee’s argument on this issue turns on whether being handcuffed and frisked made his consent to the search involuntary,” Gilman wrote.

The federal judges explained that just because a defendant is handcuffed when he or she gives consent does not invalidate that consent.

They stated that Lee’s verbal consent of “No. Go ahead and look,” provided valid consent for the officers to search his home.

While the judges stated that it was doubtful that the officers had reasonable suspicion because they had not followed up on the anonymous tip, they ruled that it was moot because of Lee’s consent.

“But we nevertheless conclude that, because Lee consented to the officers’ search, the district court did not err in denying Lee’s suppression motion,” Gilman wrote, overruling Lee’s appeal.

Judges Raymond Kethledge and R. Guy Cole joined Gilman to form the majority.

The case is cited USA v. Lee, case No. 14-3929.

[Back]