843 N.W.2d 351
S.D.2014Background
- On April 2, 2012 a federal arrest warrant issued for Christopher Yellow Eagle for a supervised-release violation; a state arrest warrant for Alisia Quevedo (failure to appear on a suspended-license sentence) was discovered in law‑enforcement databases.
- A federal‑state fugitive task force (including U.S. Marshals and Pennington County officers) located an address in Black Hawk where Yellow Eagle was believed to be living with Quevedo.
- Officers went to the Black Hawk residence, knocked, and the couple’s 12‑year‑old son answered and confirmed both adults were inside.
- Task‑force officers entered the home, observed Quevedo and Yellow Eagle apparently under the influence, found drugs on their persons, and obtained a subsequent search warrant for the house.
- Quevedo was charged with possession of a controlled substance, moved to suppress evidence seized after entry, and was convicted after a stipulated‑facts trial; she appealed the denial of her suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Quevedo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of task‑force officers to execute state arrest warrant | Officers in a joint task force (including U.S. Marshals) had authority to execute state warrants | Federal/Pennington officers lacked authority to arrest Quevedo at her home | Held: Task‑force officers had authority under federal law and SDCL to execute Quevedo’s state warrant |
| Validity of warrantless entry to arrest Quevedo | Arrest warrant for Quevedo and reasonable belief she resided and was present justified entry | Entry violated Quevedo’s Fourth Amendment right; needed separate search warrant because Yellow Eagle was a third party | Held: Entry was lawful — officers reasonably believed Quevedo resided at and was present in the home, so Payton implied‑entry rule applied |
| Entry to arrest Yellow Eagle (third‑party home issue) | Even if not arresting Quevedo, officers could enter to arrest Yellow Eagle (named in federal warrant) and use evidence against Quevedo because he was a co‑resident | Claimed Steagald protected third‑party home and required separate search warrant absent exigency | Held: Yellow Eagle was a co‑resident; Payton allows entry to arrest him and use evidence against co‑resident; Steagald did not bar entry here |
| Exigent circumstances/alternative justification for entry | Officers had basis to enter to arrest Yellow Eagle and to address potential flight (past attempted flight noted) | No exigency or consent to justify warrantless entry into the home | Held: Entry was justified either as execution of valid arrest warrants for residents or, alternatively, exigent circumstances supported the entry |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212 (8th Cir.) (an arrest warrant grants limited authority to enter a suspect’s residence; co‑resident exception applies)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1979) (valid arrest warrant implicitly permits entry into suspect’s residence when the suspect is believed present)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (generally bars entry into a third party’s home to execute an arrest warrant absent consent or exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Lauter, 57 F.3d 212 (2d Cir.) (discusses Payton’s requirements for reasonable belief of residence and presence)
- United States v. Litteral, 910 F.2d 547 (9th Cir.) (explains that Payton allows arrest in a co‑resident’s home and use of evidence against the third party)
- State v. Bonacker, 825 N.W.2d 916 (S.D.) (Fourth Amendment arrest‑warrant principles)
- State v. Heney, 839 N.W.2d 558 (S.D.) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Hess, 680 N.W.2d 314 (S.D.) (suppression standard and mixed‑questions review)
- State v. Rademaker, 813 N.W.2d 174 (S.D.) (de novo review when factual findings are not contested)
- State v. Quartier, 753 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.) (procedure for appellate review of suppression rulings)