Search & seizure; Claim the police exceeded the scope of a search warrant; Consent to a more expansive search; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte; Valid consent; United States v. Elkins; United States v. Alexander; United States v. Bond (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Determining whether consent was voluntary; United States v. Collins; United States v. Jones; Miranda v. Arizona

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] Holding that the totality of the circumstances showed that defendant-Blomquist’s consent to a more expansive search than called for in the search warrant was voluntary, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress. When police arrived with a warrant to search his father’s property, Blomquist “claimed he was running a legal medical-marijuana operation and offered to show the officers his paperwork.” They asked him if he would show them where the marijuana was being grown, and he led them to a “chicken coop, brought them inside, and showed them five small rooms with scores of marijuana plants. He explained that he moved the marijuana plants from the chicken coop to nearby greenhouses in warmer weather” and he took them there. At no point did he “suggest that the structures were on someone else’s property, nor was there any visible evidence—such as a fence, barrier, or tree line—indicating as much.” He subsequently “pled guilty to distributing and conspiring to distribute marijuana, and a jury convicted him of manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute between 50 and 100” plants. He argued that the police exceeded the warrant’s scope “when they searched the chicken coop and greenhouses on the property that he leased.” However, the court concluded that he “led, and the officers followed.” They did not force “their way into the outbuildings, told Blomquist they would go in without his permission, or stated that their warrant enabled such a search.” As to whether his consent was “contaminated” by other factors, he was given a Miranda warning before he led them on the tour, and the fact he was cooperative supported “a finding of voluntary consent.” Further, nothing indicated he “was uniquely susceptible to duress or coercion.” He was 46 years old, a trained electrician with a high-school diploma, and “had an extensive criminal history, giving him ample experience with the police and legal system.” While the officers wore tactical gear and placed him in handcuffs initially, “they did not mistreat him, threaten him, or act unprofessionally.” The court concluded that “the district court did not clearly err in holding that the warrant did not coerce” him, and the location of his arrest (on his cousin’s property) did not change the “analysis of the ‘overall context and psychological impact of the entire sequence of events.’”