N.D.Okla.: Warrantless entry into house was reasonable for officer safety and to prevent destruction of evidence

Officers acted reasonably in entering defendant’s house without a warrant to both prevent destruction of evidence and protect the safety of the officers. United States v. Aguirre, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50236 (N.D. Okla. April 14, 2016):

Finally, the facts demonstrate an exigency existed that was not subject to police manipulation or abuse. Although agents had not begun to procure a search warrant at the time they approached the residence, their actions demonstrate reasonable responses in the face of a rapidly evolving situation rather than a police-created exigency. The agents took no action that either violated or threatened to violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 462, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011) (“Where … the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed.”). The agents approached the residence with the intention of engaging the residents in a conversation and seeking consent to search the residence, and “[w]hen law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do.” Id. at 469. The agents were within legal bounds when they approached the residence, and it was the behavior of the individuals inside the residence, not the officers, that created the exigency. See id. (“Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances that may ensue.” )

The Court concludes that the agents entered the residence to prevent the destruction of evidence. As such, the agents’ warrantless entry was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

. . .

Here, considering the totality of the circumstances, the agents acted reasonably at every step in the investigation, doing no more than what was necessary to protect themselves. Agents arrived at the front door, and, after observing firearms from the open doorway, called for occupants of the residence to come out. They did not immediately enter the residence upon observation of the shotguns. Agents detained, rather than arrested, the three individuals on the front porch to ensure agents safety, even though TFO Turner testified that he had probable cause to arrest defendant at this point. And the agents who entered the residence to conduct the protective sweep conducted the sweep with the limited purpose of discovering any other individual inside the residence. And, upon discovery of another individual in the residence, agents searched only the individual and the backpack he was carrying to ensure their safety. Agents did not conduct a more thorough search until after they obtained a search warrant. The Court concludes that these facts demonstrate that agents acted reasonably throughout the entire encounter.