US v. Antonio Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00375-AW-3. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999563293]. [13-4784]

Appeal: 13-4784

Doc: 67

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO HILL, JR., a/k/a NuNu,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:12-cr-00375-AW-3)

Argued:

March 26, 2015

Decided:

April 13, 2015

Before TRAXLER, Chief Circuit Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Steven Kiersh, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
James
I. Pearce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt,
Maryland, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Sujit Raman, Chief of
Appeals, A. Zoe Bedell, Student Law Clerk, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4784

Doc: 67

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Antonio Hill pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to conspiracy to
commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
The court sentenced him to 140 months’ imprisonment.
appeals

from

the

denial

arguing

that

it

of

stemmed

his

from

motion
an

to

illegal

suppress
search.

Hill now
evidence,
For

the

following reasons, we affirm. 1

I.
A.
In 2011, while surveilling an apartment building in New
Carrollton,
(“Dominic”),

Maryland,

two

Appellant’s

police
brother,

officers
on

a

saw

Dominic

third-floor

Hill

balcony.

They later observed Dominic conducting what they believed to be
a narcotics transaction on the sidewalk outside the building.
The next day, the officers stopped Dominic in the street and
asked for his name and destination.

Dominic gave his name and

explained that he did not live in the area and was waiting for a
bus home after visiting a friend.
1

To corroborate his story,

We decide this appeal on the merits as presented by the
parties.
The government did not preserve the issue of
cognizability.

2

Appeal: 13-4784

Doc: 67

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

Dominic handed the officers a set of keys, unasked, and said,
“[L]ook, I don’t even have a car.
have.”

[These are] the only keys I

J.A. 163.

The officers took the keys to the third-floor apartment
where they had observed Dominic the day before and attempted a
key turn at the apartment’s front door.
and

the

officers

unlocked

then

relocked

opening it, and withdrew the key.
the

door

and

identified

One of the keys fit,
the

door,

without

The officers then knocked on

themselves

as

police.

From

inside,

Erico Hill (“Erico”), another defendant later charged in the
indictment, asked, “Who is it?”
again

identified

themselves

J.A. 164.

as

police,

and

The officers once
Erico

opened

the

door.
From their vantage point in the hallway, the officers saw
marijuana

inside

the

apartment,

handcuffed

While

officer

one

apartment.
Erico,

stayed

and

with

The

officers

detained

Erico,

the

him

on

other

entered
the

the

couch.

conducted

a

protective sweep, observing in plain view additional marijuana,
currency,

and

a

firearm.

The

officers

then

secured

the

apartment, applied for and obtained a search warrant, and waited
for the narcotics enforcement division to arrive.

3

Appeal: 13-4784

Doc: 67

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

This search led to a federal investigation and, nearly two
years later, an indictment charging ten defendants, including
Appellant, with drug-related crimes. 2
B.
Appellant moved to suppress all evidence against him as
fruit of the poisonous tree based on the warrantless search of
the apartment.

The court denied the motion for several reasons.

First, the court ruled that the key turn was not a search,
agreeing with the government that persuasive authority compelled
that

result.

Second,

the

court

ruled

that

the

presence

of

marijuana in plain view justified warrantless entry into the
apartment

because

“[b]y

the

time

[the

police

could]

warrant, obviously the marijuana wouldn’t still be there.”
204.

get

a

J.A.

Finally, the court ruled that the protective sweep was

permissible because the officers did not find any evidence other
than what was in plain view and did not seize any evidence prior
to obtaining a warrant.

This appeal followed.

II.
A.

2

Testimony in the record suggests that Appellant resided in
the apartment at the time of the search, although he was not
present when it occurred.

4

Appeal: 13-4784

Doc: 67

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, we review
the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo.

United States v. Williams, 740 F.3d

308, 311 (4th Cir. 2014).
B.
Appellant

contends

on

appeal

that

Erico

involuntarily

opened the apartment door in response to the officers’ demands
under

color

of

authority.

Thus,

Appellant

submits

that

the

officers conducted an illegal search by viewing marijuana in the
apartment

through

the

opened

door,

and

that

all

evidence

gathered as a result of this search was fruit of the poisonous
tree.
It
without

We disagree.
is

well

more,

authority.

established

does

not

that

a

constitute

knock
a

and

demand

announcement,

under

color

of

See Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1863 (2011)

(stating that “[t]here [was] no evidence of a ‘demand’ of any
sort” where the officers “banged on the door as loud as [they]
could” and identified themselves as police (second alteration in
original)).

That is all that happened here.

Erico opened the

door after the officers knocked and identified themselves as
police.

They

made

no

accompanying

demand

that

the

door

be

opened.
Appellant’s reliance on cases in which the police demanded
under color of authority that the door be opened are therefore
5

Appeal: 13-4784

Doc: 67

misplaced.

Filed: 04/13/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

See, e.g., United States v. Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395,

400 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that the defendant did not
open a door voluntarily where he “initially refused to open his
door

and . . .

opened

it

slightly

after

the

officers

had

identified themselves and demanded that he open it”), abrogated
on other grounds by King, 131 S. Ct. 1849.

Because Erico opened

the door in response to the officers’ knock and announcement
only rather than in response to a demand that he open it, we
conclude that he did so voluntarily.

Therefore, the officers

conducted a legal search and the evidence gathered as a result
was not fruit of the poisonous tree warranting suppression.

III.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial of
Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence is
AFFIRMED.

6