746 F.3d 369
8th Cir.2014Background
- Police received an anonymous 911 tip that Michael Glover (with active arrest warrants) was inside 5347 Enright Avenue; caller provided DOB and the gated-community gate code.
- Officers observed a black Cadillac Escalade at the residence that matched a vehicle linked to Glover in a fugitive profile.
- Officers knocked and called for Glover with no response; caller later said Glover was watching from an upstairs window and described officers’ movements.
- Two detectives surveilled, called for Glover, and after hearing movement one detective pressed his face to a tinted living-room window and saw Glover with a gun; Glover fled into the house.
- Officers breached the front door pursuant to active arrest warrants, arrested Glover in a back bedroom, performed a protective sweep and secured the premises; a search warrant later yielded large quantities of heroin, firearms, and $197,833.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry into the Enright Ave. home to execute arrest warrants was unlawful because officers lacked a reasonable belief Glover resided there | Glover: officers did not have sufficient information before entry to reasonably believe he lived at the house | Government: totality of circumstances (anonymous tip, gate code, matching vehicle, caller’s contemporaneous observations) gave officers a reasonable belief Glover resided and was present | Entry was justified: officers had valid arrest warrants and reasonably believed Glover resided at and was present in the home, so warrantless entry to arrest was lawful |
| Whether Officer Wasem’s pressing his face to a tinted window to view inside constituted an unconstitutional search requiring suppression | Glover: peering through tinted window was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment | Government: unnecessary to resolve because entry was lawful based on warrants and belief of residence/presence | Court declined to decide the window-search question, because suppression was unnecessary given lawful entry |
| Whether evidence observed in plain view after entry should be suppressed | Glover: evidence was fruit of unlawful observation/entry and should be suppressed | Government: once inside lawfully to execute arrest, incriminating items in plain view provided probable cause for search warrant | Evidence admissible: plain-view observations and subsequent search warrant validated seizure |
| Whether Glover has standing / greater protection at third-party residence | Glover: claimed Fourth Amendment protections to challenge entry and search | Government: argued Glover lived there or otherwise lacked greater protection than in his own home | Court: resolved on officers’ reasonable belief and Payton framework; concurrence noted post-arrest proof Glover lived there, so result same |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (arrest warrant implicitly authorizes entry into suspect’s dwelling when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (an arrest warrant generally does not authorize entry into a third party’s home without consent or exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Powell, 379 F.3d 520 (8th Cir. 2004) (officers executing an arrest warrant at a third party’s home may enter if they reasonably believe the suspect resides there and is present)
- United States v. Junkman, 160 F.3d 1191 (8th Cir. 1998) (reasonableness of officers’ belief assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Cantrell, 530 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2008) (if officers have an arrest warrant and reasonable belief suspect lives and is present, no separate search warrant is required to enter to arrest)