United States v. Steven Shaw
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3619
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Officers Cheirs and Robinson went to 3171 Hendricks Ave. to serve an arrest warrant for Phyllis Brown but found two 3170 addresses and no 3171.
- The officers chose an occupied residence and obtained entry after falsely telling the occupant they had a warrant for this address (3170) rather than for 3171 Brown.
- Inside, they conducted a protective sweep andFound cocaine in Shaw’s home, leading to Shaw’s drug convictions.
- District court denied Shaw’s suppression motion; Shaw appealed on Fourth Amendment grounds and for sentencing issues.
- The panel majority reversed the suppression ruling and remanded for further proceedings; a dissent would affirm on alternative grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entering the home under a warrant for another address was lawful | Shaw: entry based on deception violates Payton/Pruitt | United States: reasonable belief suffices under Payton/Pruitt | No Fourth Amendment entry based on deception; not reasonable belief under the circumstances |
| Whether staying inside the home on the basis of false statements was lawful | Shaw: continued stay violated knock-and-talk limits | United States: permissible if reasonable belief existed | Stay was not justified by deception; not permissible under Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the evidence should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule | Shaw: suppression warranted due to unlawful entry | United States: good-faith exception may apply (dissent) | Exclusionary rule applies; suppression warranted under the governing standard |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies to the evidence | Shaw: good-faith reliance on mistaken identity should matter | United States: good-faith exception may preclude suppression | Majority rejects good-faith defense; suppression contemplated for unlawful entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (arrest warrant carries limited authority to enter a dwelling)
- Pruitt v. United States, 458 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2006) (reasonable belief standard for dwelling entry under arrest warrant)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1968) (consent cannot be based on false assertion of authority)
- El Bey v. Roop, 530 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 2008) (limits on deception in law-enforcement encounters)
- Hardin v. United States, 539 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussion of good faith and deterrence in exclusionary rule)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule not automatic; limited deterrence)