CA7: Merely knocking on the door to def’s motel room and him answering isn’t a seizure

Merely knocking on the door to defendant’s motel room and him answering isn’t a seizure. Moreover, showing him an arrest warrant for 15-20 seconds was not a seizure (but he didn’t even adequately brief it). He then consented to entry into the room. United States v. Jones, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 427 (7th Cir. Jan. 7, 2022):

… In his briefing in support of the motion to suppress, Jones argued only that he was seized by the knocking and the lateness of the hour, not that the warrant itself contributed to the seizure.

Jones nonetheless contends that he preserved the argument that the arrest warrant contributed to a seizure. His arguments are unpersuasive. First, he objected only to the magistrate judge’s finding that “no seizure occurred when the officers spoke with [Jones] at the door.” Second, although his suppression motion briefing discussed Jerez, that case did not involve the display of a warrant; the court’s conclusion that a seizure occurred turned on the lateness of the hour and the prolonged knocking on both the door and the window. Finally, Jones fails to cite a case in which an appellate court considered the presence of a warrant notwithstanding a defendant’s failure to raise the issue below. Because Jones forfeited this argument, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Julius, 14 F.4th 752, 755 (7th Cir. 2021). To prevail on plain error review, Jones must show (1) an error, (2) that was plain, (3) that affected his substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. Id.

Jones has failed to show any error, let alone plain error. …