Elliott came to the attention of law enforcement when his girlfriend and another woman reported that he collected child pornography. When Elliott learned about the report, he became dangerous and armed himself with a pistol. The women called 911 and provided the police with information about his location, the description of his car, and why they were afraid of him.
Law enforcement officers arrived at the scene and found Elliott sitting outside in a red Dodge Avenger, matching the description given by the women. They placed him in handcuffs and asked for consent to search his car, to which he responded affirmatively. The search yielded a loaded .38 revolver and a marijuana pipe, leading to Elliott’s arrest as a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Subsequently, flash drives provided by Elliott’s girlfriend were found to contain child pornography, leading to further charges.
Elliott moved to suppress all the evidence, but the district court ruled against him. He decided to plead guilty while reserving the right to appeal the suppression issues and his sentence. The appellate court applies de novo review to legal conclusions and overturns factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous.
The legal opinion addresses Elliott’s arguments. First, Elliott challenges the start of the encounter as a stop and frisk outside the apartment building. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the non-anonymous caller’s report, which provided specific details about Elliott’s activities and location. The officers corroborated some of the details, justifying the stop and subsequent actions.
Second, Elliott argues that the encounter crossed the line into a custodial interrogation without a Miranda warning. However, the court determines that the statements made by the officers, including the reference to a “pot pipe,” fell within the public-safety exception. The exception allows officers to ask questions related to potential dangers without providing Miranda warnings. Additionally, the court states that a request to search a suspect’s car does not require Miranda warnings or invalidate consent to search.
Third, Elliott challenges the search warrants. The court finds that probable cause existed for the warrants based on Elliott’s girlfriend’s information about the flash drives and the detective’s discovery of child pornography on them. The court cites previous cases where finding illegal material on one set of electronic devices created a fair probability of finding it on others.
Finally, the court addresses Elliott’s sentence of 660 months, which it considers to be substantively reasonable. The district court considered statutory sentencing factors and did not rely on improper factors or commit a clear error of judgment.
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the refusal to suppress the evidence and the imposed sentence.