Judge Kimba Wood
Smith was charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine and heroin. He moved to suppress a scale, money counter and diluting agents seized in a search of the apartment he shares with his girlfriend. Smith argued the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because his express refusal to consent, while present in the apartment, overrode any consent given by his girlfriend. After an evidentiary hearing, district courtdiscussing the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in Herring v. United Statesgranted suppression. It was more likely than not that Smith expressly objected to the search. However, given noise and confusion during Smith’s arrest, the officers likely did not hear Smith’s refusal. Granting the government reconsideration, the court denied suppression. Its fact findings called into question whether the officers’ conduct was “sufficiently deliberate” to warrant suppression under Herring. The court deemed the officers’ reliance on Smith’s girlfriend’s consent objectively reasonable. Further, evidence of Smith’s possession of the seized items was probative to the government’s case at trial, such that its suppression would exact “a costly toll upon truth seeking and law enforcement objectives.”
