United States v. Ramirez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8451
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Officers arrested two men at the bus terminal for heroin in their shoes and learned of a third man matching a description who also had heroin.
- Investigators traced three suspects—Ramirez, Ibarra-Penuelas, and Cruz—through ticket records and hotel sightings after the bus arrests.
- The trio checked into a hotel (Econo Lodge) about 30 minutes before police arrived and used a key card to access room 220.
- Three men were later seen on surveillance and left a cab on foot toward the hotel before entering room 220; upon entry, two pairs of shoes similar to heroin-containing shoes were found in the room.
- Officers forcibly entered room 220 with a ram after Cruz partially opened the door; heroin was found in the suspect shoes and linked to the defendants; the arrest and hotel-room entry preceded a suppression motion.
- The district court denied suppression, ruling the entry was justified by exigent circumstances; Ramirez appealed arguing no exigency existed and the entry was illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless hotel entry | Ramirez argues no exigency existed | United States argues there was an imminent risk of evidence destruction | Exigency not shown; entry unconstitutional |
| Whether the officers created an exigency, barring a warrantless entry | Ramirez contends the failed keycard entry and knock created the exigency | Government contends no police-created exigency; King permits non-created exigency | Exigency not created by police conduct; warrantless entry reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 521 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2008) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness; exigent circumstances overview)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. _ (2011) (police-created exigency and reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Ball, 90 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1996) (exigent circumstances—evidence destruction without waiting for warrant)
- United States v. Clement, 854 F.2d 1116 (8th Cir. 1988) (evidence destruction imminent; exigency limits for hotel rooms)
- United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2003) (exigency analysis; objective reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Granados, 596 F.3d 970 (8th Cir. 2010) (hotel-room exigency context supporting or distinguishing by facts)