United States v. Johnny Vasquez-Algarin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7889
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2010 officers with an arrest warrant for Edguardo Rivera went to an apartment on North 13th Street after receiving tips from another detective and street informants that Rivera was "staying" there.
- Officers knocked for an extended period, heard movement, a phone ring stop, and a dog quiet down; they then forcibly entered the apartment.
- Rivera neither lived at nor was present in the apartment; officers found Johnny Vasquez-Algarin (the appellant) and observed suspected drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain view.
- Vasquez-Algarin (who had no outstanding warrants) was convicted of drug offenses after a district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence seized following the warrantless entry.
- On appeal the Third Circuit reviewed whether officers needed a search warrant (or only an arrest warrant and a lower showing) to force entry when they believed, but were uncertain, that the arrestee lived at and was present in the dwelling.
- The Third Circuit vacated the conviction, holding the officers lacked the required level of justification and that the good-faith exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payton’s “reason to believe”/"reasonable belief" standard requires probable cause that the arrestee resides at and is present in the dwelling | Vasquez-Algarin: the officers lacked probable cause that the arrestee lived at or was present in the apartment; without probable cause a warrantless entry was unconstitutional | Government: officers had a reasonable belief (less than probable cause) based on informant tips, another officer’s information, and sounds from inside; alternatively evidence should survive under the good-faith exception | The court held that Payton’s “reason to believe” requires probable cause that the suspect resides at and is present in the home; officers lacked probable cause here |
| Whether the facts heard at the suppression hearing (tips + sounds from inside) established probable cause for residency or presence | Vasquez-Algarin: tips were vague and uncorroborated; sounds alone cannot bootstrap residency into probable cause | Government: the combination of tips and observed indicators of life justified entry | The court held the uncorroborated tips and ambiguous sounds did not meet the probable cause standard for either residency or presence |
| Whether evidence should nonetheless be admitted under the good-faith exception | Vasquez-Algarin: exclusion appropriate because officers were grossly negligent and could/should have known entry was unlawful | Government: suppression unnecessary because officers acted in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance | The court held the good-faith exception did not apply; officers’ conduct was sufficiently culpable to warrant suppression |
| Remedy: whether conviction should stand | Vasquez-Algarin: conviction should be vacated if suppression should have been granted | Government: conviction should stand if good-faith or similar exception applies | The court vacated the conviction and remanded for proceedings consistent with suppression of the unlawfully obtained evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (arrest warrant alone permits entry into suspect’s residence only when there is reason to believe suspect is within)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (officers must obtain a search warrant to enter a third party’s home to execute an arrest warrant absent consent or exigency)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (discusses authority to enter when officers possess an arrest warrant and probable cause that the suspect is in his home)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (scope of good-faith exception and when exclusionary rule deters official misconduct)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (evidence obtained in reasonable reliance on binding precedent not subject to exclusion)
- United States v. Veal, 453 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. Payton application where arrestee’s residence and presence were established)
- United States v. Agnew, 407 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. treated reasonable belief in Payton context as probable-cause-equivalent in practice)
- United States v. Katzin, 769 F.3d 163 (en banc 3d Cir. on good-faith analysis and objective reasonableness)