M.D.Ga.: Def’s probation search of gun safe was with RS of drugs, even if door had to be peeled

Officers had reasonable suspicion for a probation search of defendant’s house, and that included his gun safe. They could have peeled the door but didn’t, and defendant’s giving the combination was essentially moot because the officers could have broken in. Even though defendant’s statement was suppressed, the search wasn’t. United States v. Harris, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173182 (M.D. Ga. December 16, 2014):

Defendant also contends the officers exceeded the scope of their search when they entered the gun safe at Defendant’s residence since, according to Defendant, there was no reason to suspect alcohol or controlled substances were contained therein.6 (Doc. 27 at 10.) In response, the Government argues the officers had a reasonable suspicion drugs could be contained in the gun safe. The officers were permitted to search for the “detection of alcohol or controlled substances” without a warrant per the terms of Defendant’s probation. (Doc. 23-1 at 2.) Searches generally are permitted in any area where the items in question could possibly be contained. United States v. Edwards, 343 Fed. Appx. 468, 471 (11th Cir. 2009). Where law enforcement officers are legally permitted to conduct a search, they can break open furniture or objects to search its contents. United States v. Martinez, 949 F.2d 1117, 1120 (11th Cir. 1992) (“a warrant to search a specific area for a certain class of things authorizes government agents to break open locked containers which may contain the objects of the search.”) (citing United States v. Gonzalez, 940 F.2d 1413, 1420 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Morris, 647 F.2d 568, 572-73 (5th Cir. 1981)). According to Agent Luke’s testimony and as noted in the Government’s briefing, there was a belief that controlled substances could be located in the gun safe considering its size.

The Court’s suppression of statements to Agent Reed, including Defendant’s disclosure of the gun safe’s passcode, are of little import in assessing the permissibility of the search for items seized within the gun safe because discovery of the firearms was inevitable. Seizure of items that would be inevitably discovered lawfully are permissible if obtained after an illegal interrogation when the Government proves lawful means were pursued to gather the evidence prior to the initiation of illegal conduct. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 449-50, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 81 L. Ed. 2d 377 (1984); United States v. Stilling, 346 Fed. App’x 458, 459 (11th Cir. 2009)(“Under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, ‘there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence in question would have been discovered by lawful means, and the prosecution must demonstrate that lawful means which made discovery inevitable were being actively pursued prior to the occurrence of the illegal conduct.'”)(quoting Jefferson v. Fountain, 382 F.3d 1286, 1296 (11th Cir. 2004)). In the view of the Court, based on law enforcement’s reasonable suspicion Defendant was participating in illegal activities, the terms of Defendant’s probation, and prior seizure of a marijuana plant, it was reasonable to search a gun safe big enough to contain additional illegal substances. During the initial search of Defendant’s residence, per the terms of Defendant’s probation and reasonable suspicion, the officers were authorized to open containers like the gun safe. Discovery of the firearms inevitably seized were permissible on that basis alone and without regard to the passcode for the safe. As a result, regardless of Defendant’s recitation of the gun safe’s passcode, entry into the gun safe and the eventual seizure of the firearms therein is justifiable upon the existing reasonable suspicion and not upon Defendant’s provision of the code to the gun safe. At worst, Defendant benefitted by not having his property damaged.