Jury Determination Required for ACCA Predicate “Different Occasions” Post-Erlinger

Introduction

United States v. Davion Rivers arises from the Eleventh Circuit’s consideration of two core issues: the legality of law-enforcement officers’ entry onto private property and the scope of judicial versus jury fact-finding under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Davion Rivers was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the district court enhanced his sentence under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on three prior drug distribution convictions “committed on occasions different from one another.” Rivers challenged both the suppression of evidence recovered at his home and the ACCA enhancement in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States (2024). On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of suppression, vacated Rivers’s ACCA-enhanced sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Suppression Rulings Affirmed: Officers responding to a 9-1-1 call lawfully approached Rivers’s side driveway under the “knock-and-talk” doctrine, the gate was open, and no express trespass warning was seen at night. Rivers’s later battery arrest provided an independent basis—search incident to arrest—for recovering the revolver. The search warrant for the home likewise rested on ample probable cause (residence link, felon status, firearm possession) and fell within the good-faith exception.

2. ACCA Enhancement Vacated: Under Erlinger, a judge may not by preponderance of the evidence find that a defendant’s prior felonies were “committed on occasions different from one another”—that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant. The district court’s reliance on judicial fact-finding violated Rivers’s Sixth Amendment rights. Because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have unanimously found three distinct occasions, the error was not harmless.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Erlinger v. United States (602 U.S. 821, 2024): Held ACCA’s “different occasions” element is a jury-province and not subject to judge-only fact-finding by a preponderance standard.
Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466, 2000) & Alleyne v. United States (570 U.S. 99, 2013): Mandate that any fact increasing statutory maximum or mandatory minimum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Wooden v. United States (595 U.S. 360, 2022): Applied a multi-factor “occasion” test (time, location, purpose, character) to ACCA predicates.
Florida v. Jardines (569 U.S. 1, 2013): Recognized the “knock-and-talk” implied license to approach a home’s front path, extended by sister circuits to customary side or back entrances.
Sister-circuit knock-and-talk cases (Shuck, Titemore, Thomas, Reyes, Raines, Daoust): Validated use of non-front entrances when they are the customary approach.

Legal Reasoning

1. Knock-and-Talk Exception and Curtilage: The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires a warrant to search a home, but officers may approach any customary entrance to knock and speak, just as any private citizen may. Rivers’s side driveway was Officer Morningstar’s known, open, customary route; no express revocation (clear, posted sign seen at night) defeated the implied license.

2. Search Incident to Arrest: When Rivers pushed Officer Morningstar on the public roadway, the battery arrest supplied independent probable cause to pat-down and seize the revolver from Rivers’s person.

3. Search Warrant Probable Cause: Detective Pieper’s affidavit connected Rivers to the residence, described his felon status, prior drug convictions, and recent firearm arrest, and explained that ammunition is commonly kept with a firearm. The magistrate’s finding of probable cause and good-faith exception seal the validity of the warrant.

4. ACCA “Different Occasions” Requirement: The ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum where a felon has three prior violent or serious drug convictions “committed on occasions different from one another.” Erlinger held that any fact entitling the government to that heightened penalty—here, separate occasions—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a judge on a preponderance.

5. Harmless-Error Analysis: Erlinger errors are subject to harmless error review. The government must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have unanimously found Rivers’s March 9, 13, and 17 sales to be distinct occasions under the multi-factor test. Given the compressed eight-day time span, overlapping neighborhood locations, identical buyer, and small-scale sales, the court concluded the record could support competing jury conclusions. The government did not meet its burden; the error was not harmless.

Impact

This decision cements post-Erlinger practice in the Eleventh Circuit and aligns with sister circuits: sentencing courts may no longer enhance under ACCA’s “different occasions” clause without a jury verdict or a defendant’s explicit admission. Trial judges must either submit special verdict questions or ensure plea colloquies cover predicate-occasion admissions. Failure to do so risks vacatur and remand for resentencing. The case also reaffirms practical limits on knock-and-talk entries and underscores that search-warrant affidavits rooted in officer experience can satisfy the probable-cause standard.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Knock-and-Talk Exception: Police may approach any reasonable, customary entrance of a home to knock and seek consent, just like any visitor.
Curtilage: The land immediately surrounding a house enjoying Fourth Amendment protection; officers may approach areas customarily used for access.
Search Incident to Arrest: When an arrest is lawful, officers may search the arrestee and the area within their reach without a warrant.
Probable Cause: A reasonable basis to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the place to be searched.
ACCA Enhancement: A 15-year minimum sentence triggered by three prior qualifying felonies “on different occasions.”
Erlinger Error: Occurs when a judge, not a jury, finds by preponderance that prior offenses were on separate occasions—violates the Sixth Amendment.
Harmless Error: An error that does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights; the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have reached the same verdict.

Conclusion

United States v. Rivers clarifies two critical points. First, knock-and-talk entries by officers using a known, open, customary entrance remain lawful absent an express, visible revocation. Second—and more significantly—it underscores that under the ACCA’s “different occasions” clause, only a jury’s unanimous, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding (or an explicit plea admission) can sustain an enhanced mandatory minimum. Sentencing courts must now adjust procedures to secure proper jury findings or face mandated remands. This ruling advances Sixth Amendment protections in federal sentencing and will shape ACCA litigation going forward.