CA11: Warrantless search condition of house arrest was valid

When officers came to arrest defendant at his home, their finding two others at the house justified a protective sweep, and a gun was in plain view. Also, defendant agreed to warrantless searches of his home as a condition of house arrest, and it was a valid condition and consent. United States v. Yeary, 740 F.3d 569 (11th Cir. 2014):

The choice Yeary faced—in-house arrest on the terms outlined in the ACU agreement or jail—is not all that different from those we have held to be voluntary in the context of run-of-the mill consent searches. For example, we upheld a search where police officers presented the defendant with the choice of consenting to the search or having his house “dug up” once a search warrant was obtained. See United States v. Long, 866 F.2d 402, 405 (11th Cir. 1989) (“Even if the officers stated that they could come back and ‘dig the place up,’ such a statement does not amount to coercion. [The defendant] was free to force the agents to obtain a search warrant and, if at that time, he did not want ‘his whole place dug up,’ [he] could have cooperated.”). Similarly, we have found consent to be voluntary where fourteen police officers were present at the defendant’s house when they arrested and handcuffed him and where the officers refused to accept the defendant’s conditional consent to search only the part of the house, stating they would instead obtain a search warrant unless the defendant consented to a full search. See United States v. Garcia, 890 F.2d 355, 360-62 (11th Cir. 1989). Still another case that supports our conclusion that the consent in this case was voluntary is United States v. Espinosa-Orlando, 704 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1983). In Espinosa-Orlando, the defendant was pulled over by officers on suspicions that he was transporting drugs. Id. at 510. With guns drawn, four officers ordered the defendant to get out of his car and lie on the ground. Id. Three of the officers holstered their guns while the other pointed the gun elsewhere; then one of the officers asked for the defendant’s consent to search the car. Id. at 513. The defendant consented, and we held that the consent was voluntary and uncoerced. Id.

From these cases it becomes clear that Yeary was hardly faced with the Hobson’s choice he presents. He was not entitled to release on bail; given his criminal history, his risk of flight, and his threat to kill Kline, the court had more than ample grounds to detain him pending trial. Viewed in this light, we find entirely reasonable the court’s requirement that, if he desired in-house arrest rather than detention in jail, Yeary would have to consent to warrantless searches of his residence. In short, the imposition of the condition does not amount to coercion sufficient to render Yeary’s consent invalid.