W.D.La.: That defendant was “staying” at a residence satisfies Payton’s “reason to believe” requirement

That defendant was “staying” at a residence satisfies Payton’s “reason to believe” requirement he’s residing there. United States v. Washington, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176979 (W.D.La. Nov. 18, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35051 (W.D. La. Mar. 16, 2016):

The officers had two separate sources indicating that Randle was “staying” at Defendant’s house on Syphon Street. “Staying” at a home generally means sleeping there. It does not mean just coming by for a cup of coffee. Tr. 24; Clayton v. City of Kingston, 44 Fed. Supp. 2d 177, 182 (N. D. NY 1999) (the colloquial use of the word “stay” is consistent with “reside”).

The woman at the first house told the officers that Randle was “staying” at a particular house on Syphon Street. The officers took that to mean that Randle was living there at the time. Tr. 74. Her description of the house, which included a correct description of the vehicle parked in front, was very specific and was corroborated just a few minutes later.

Fitzpatrick, the fugitive recovery agent who had worked hand in hand with the warrants division for years, corroborated the information provided by the woman. Fitzpatrick was very reliable and his information was always accurate. He told at least one of the officers that Randle was staying at the house on Syphon Street and had been seen in the front yard. Fitzpatrick personally confirmed Defendant’s presence at the residence and saw Randle enter the home.