United States v. Coleman, 2025 WL 2837974 (7th Cir. 2025)
“Responding to 911 calls of domestic violence is one of the most difficult responsibilities of police officers. This case is a good example.” So begins the court of appeals opinion in United States v. Coleman. Not only do domestic violence calls present significant danger to victims and responding officers, but they are also frequently fraught with Fourth Amendment issues.
In Marshfield, Wisconsin, a child called 911 and reported her stepfather, Jaison Coleman, had threatened to kill her mother, Lisa. The caller indicated Coleman was still inside the home. Coleman was eventually charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He appealed, claiming the responding officers’ entry into his home violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court had the benefit of responding Officer Jamie Kizer’s body-worn camera (BWC) recording to establish undisputable facts. The court noted a “video record of the events at issue can evaporate any factual dispute that would otherwise exist.” (Score one for BWCs!)
After the initial 911 call, Officer Kizer arrived and spoke with Lisa on the porch, asking about the safety of her children and Coleman’s location. Lisa hesitated to tell Officer Kizer whether her kids were safe, saying only that they were in her bedroom. Kizer asked whether the kids were going to be okay, and Lisa just said, “I hope so.” When the officer asked to go inside and check on the kids, she told him, “I’d prefer you not.”
After a brief pause while she went back into the house to get her shoes, Lisa returned to the doorway. She told Officer Kizer the children were “okay right this second.” Officer Kizer responded, “I’m sensing that we almost need to come inside to make sure of that.” Lisa relented, telling Officer Kizer her dogs would not bite as she opened the door and pushed the dogs away. She said Coleman was likely in the back bedroom.
The officers entered and found Coleman. They conducted a protective pat down. Speaking with the children, they learned Coleman had brandished a gun at Lisa and also threatened to burn the house down. The kids did not know where the gun was located. The officers obtained a search warrant, which led to the discovery of several guns in the house.
“Officer Kizer and his colleagues exhibited sound and balanced decision making in delicate and difficult circumstances.”
Coleman moved to suppress the guns, arguing Lisa had not consented to the officers’ entry. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress, concluding the officers did not exceed the scope of Lisa’s consent. Coleman pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Coleman claimed Officer Kizer’s use of the phrase “need to come inside” implied Lisa had no choice but to consent. The court disagreed. The appellate court held Lisa’s consent was voluntary and the officers acted within the scope of her consent. The court noted that “two aspects of the interaction stand out.” First, the court cited Officer Kizer’s tone and demeanor as evidence that he was concerned, not coercing: “He spoke calmly and respectfully to Lisa.” Talk nice, think tactical! Next, Lisa showed she understood that she could deny consent to entry because initially she did just that. Lisa’s consent after Officer Kizer’s repeated request, a simple “okay,” coupled with opening the door and moving the dogs aside, supported the trial court’s ruling that the officers did not coerce her consent.
The court affirmed Coleman’s conviction, closing their opinion with an “overarching observation: Officer Kizer and his colleagues exhibited sound and balanced decision making in delicate and difficult circumstances.” The use of a body-worn camera, coupled with a patient and calm approach, ensured the safety of Lisa and her children. It also helped preserve the admissibility of the evidence supporting Coleman’s conviction. While Coleman spends 102 months in federal prison, Lisa will have a chance to consider her options.
