United States v. Ben Nouglas Deanda, Edward Contrell Sample, Edmond Clyde Sample, and Jerome Edward Wiley

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Ben Nouglas Deanda, Edward Contrell Sample, Edmond Clyde Sample, and Jerome Edward Wiley

73 F.3d 825, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 428

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided January 16, 1996·No. 95-3085, 95-3086, 95-3189, and 95-3206·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.'

The appellants, Ben Nouglas Deanda, Edward Contrell Sample, Edmond Clyde Sample, and Jerome Edward Wiley, all entered conditional pleas of guilty to drug offenses. On this appeal, they challenge the decision of the District Court 1 to deny their motion to suppress evidence.

In the main, the appeal presents only issues of fact. The District Court decided that the appellant Wiley voluntarily opened the door of his house to officers, and thereafter voluntarily consented to the search of his *826 house. These findings were based on the District Court’s determination that the testimony of the officers was more credible than that of the defendants. The findings are not clearly erroneous. Nor was any error of law committed. The officers, acting on an anonymous tip, knocked on Wiley’s door and asked to come in. Wiley willingly let them in. The officers did not enter with a display of force or otherwise in a coercive manner. They did not demand or obtain entry under authority of law. They simply knocked on the door and were let in. The evidence at issue was thereafter observed either in plain view or as a result of Wiley’s consent to search the entire house.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.'

The appellants, Ben Nouglas Deanda, Edward Contrell Sample, Edmond Clyde Sample, and Jerome Edward Wiley, all entered conditional pleas of guilty to drug offenses. On this appeal, they challenge the decision of the District Court 1 to deny their motion to suppress evidence.

In the main, the appeal presents only issues of fact. The District Court decided that the appellant Wiley voluntarily opened the door of his house to officers, and thereafter voluntarily consented to the search of his *826 house. These findings were based on the District Court’s determination that the testimony of the officers was more credible than that of the defendants. The findings are not clearly erroneous. Nor was any error of law committed. The officers, acting on an anonymous tip, knocked on Wiley’s door and asked to come in. Wiley willingly let them in. The officers did not enter with a display of force or otherwise in a coercive manner. They did not demand or obtain entry under authority of law. They simply knocked on the door and were let in. The evidence at issue was thereafter observed either in plain view or as a result of Wiley’s consent to search the entire house.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States v. Ben Nouglas Deanda, Edward Contrell Sample, Edmond Clyde Sample, and Jerome Edward Wiley, 73 F.3d 825, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 428 (8th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

73 F.3d 825 (United States v. Ben Nouglas Deanda, Edward Contrell Sample, Edmond Clyde Sample, and Jerome Edward Wiley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related