768 F.3d 94
2d Cir.2014Background
- DEA agents arrested Andino’s boyfriend (Montanez) after controlled buys and seized cocaine; Montanez told agents he kept ounces of cocaine at the Norfolk Avenue residence and signed a written consent to search.
- Around 11:00 p.m., agents approached the house; after identifying themselves and telling Andino why they were there, she slammed the door, ran away from the entry, and officers heard running water and drawers opening/closing.
- An agent entered through a living-room window, encountered Andino in the living room and two children on a couch; officers secured Andino and the residence.
- Officers went to the kitchen to stop apparent destruction of evidence; Officer Jones turned off a still-running faucet and seized a plastic baggie in the sink containing a milky white residue later confirmed to be cocaine.
- The magistrate judge and district court suppressed the sink cocaine, concluding exigent circumstances justified the initial entry but ended when officers secured Andino; the government appealed that ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified initial warrantless entry | Andino argued initial entry was unlawful because exigent circumstances did not exist | Government: officers reasonably believed evidence was being destroyed after Montanez’s admissions and occupant’s reactions | Court: initial entry justified by exigent circumstances (reversed on suppression only as to kitchen evidence) |
| Whether exigent circumstances continued after Andino was secured so as to justify entry into kitchen | Andino: securing her ended the exigency; subsequent kitchen search was unlawful | Government: sounds of destruction (running water, drawers) and faucet still running meant exigency continued until faucet was stopped | Held: exigency continued; entry into kitchen justified to prevent destruction of evidence |
| Whether seizure of baggie in sink was lawful under plain view/probable cause | Andino: even if entry justified, seizure exceeded scope or lacked probable cause | Government: baggie with white residue in sink plus prior information gave probable cause and was in plain view from lawful vantage | Held: seizure lawful under plain view/probable cause doctrine |
| Whether officers could rely on observations made after Andino shut the door | Andino: officers lost authority after she refused entry; subsequent observations shouldn’t justify entry | Government: occupant’s evasive conduct after lawful knock may create exigency and justify entry | Held: officers could rely on occupant’s conduct and sounds after the door was shut to establish exigency |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (warrant requirement yields to exigent circumstances)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (occupant’s attempt to destroy evidence may create exigency after lawful police approach)
- United States v. Marin Moreno, 701 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2012) (evaluating exigent-circumstances entry where occupant’s reaction contributed to exigency)
- United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1990) (factors for assessing exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Klump, 536 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (objective inquiry into exigency; limits on scope of warrantless entry)
- United States v. Gomez, 633 F.2d 999 (2d Cir. 1980) (noise indicating destruction of evidence supports exigent entry)
- Ruggiero v. Krzeminski, 928 F.2d 558 (2d Cir. 1991) (plain view seizure elements)