162 A.3d 1230
R.I.2017Background
- Late evening July 31, 2007: police responded to reports of shots fired and a nearby complainant who identified Terzian as the shooter; officers went to 19 Pumgansett Street.
- Terzian answered the door, appeared intoxicated, was identified by a witness, handcuffed and seated in a police cruiser; he was not asked for consent to entry or search.
- Two women at the scene — Stephanie (Terzian’s fiancée) and her daughter Samantha — disputed whether they lived at the house; officers nonetheless entered after Stephanie (per police testimony) volunteered that there were guns inside.
- Officers located a can of pepper spray in a trash bin and, after being directed (per police) to a bureau in Terzian’s bedroom, found a firearm and loose .38 bullets; BCI photographed and the gun was later seized without a warrant.
- At a suppression hearing, police testified they assumed Stephanie lived there and that exigent circumstances (recent shots fired, a child in the house, an unaccounted-for gun) justified entry; Stephanie and Samantha testified the police entered without permission and searched the bedroom.
- The Superior Court denied the motion to suppress; defendant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon (three counts) and carrying a pistol without a license. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Terzian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of entry/search based on third‑party (apparent) consent | Stephanie had apparent authority to admit officers, so entry/search was lawful | Stephanie lacked authority and officers did not reasonably believe she lived there; consent invalid | No apparent authority — officers offered only assumptions; consent exception fails |
| Exigent‑circumstances exception to warrant requirement | Recent shots, smell of gunpowder, unaccounted firearm, and a child justified immediate entry to secure weapon | No concrete evidence of an immediate threat; Terzian was in custody and no one else posed imminent danger; officers could have obtained a warrant | No exigency shown on facts known to officers at entry; exception does not apply |
| Warrant requirement for home entry | Entry was justified either by consent or exigency; thus warrant not required | Warrantless home entry presumptively unreasonable absent proven exception | Warrantless entry/search violated Fourth Amendment; evidence suppressed |
| Harmless‑error analysis of admission of gun | Firearm was cumulative and corroborative of eyewitness testimony; any error harmless | Firearm was critical to proving control of weapon; its admission likely affected jury | Admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction vacated and new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (apparent‑authority consent is valid if officer’s belief that third party had authority was reasonable)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (exigent‑circumstances exception justified warrantless entry to prevent violence; objective reasonableness standard)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entries for arrests/searches are presumptively unconstitutional absent an exception)
- State v. Portes, 840 A.2d 1131 (R.I. 2004) (exigent‑circumstances analysis and limits on warrantless domestic‑scene entries)
- State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131 (R.I. 2016) (police must show objective, specific facts known at the time to justify exigency for warrantless home entry)