Arrest of co-conspirator outside of a drug house gave exigent circumstances for search

Probable cause and exigent circumstances existed for a search of the house because of drug sales going on around it by people residing there and because of the arrest of one of them outside. That led to a search warrant of the house which was also supported by independent information as to what was inside. United States v. Handberry, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51372 (E.D. N.C. July 7, 2008):

Turning now to the second prong of the argument, namely, where probable cause to believe that illegal activity was afoot at the Bonner Street residence, whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. “It is well established that even when officers have probable cause to believe that contraband is present in a home, a warrantless search of the home is unlawful unless exigent circumstances exist at the time of entry.” United States v. Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2008). The Fourth Circuit has enumerated five factors that district courts should consider in determining whether an exigency existed at the time a search commenced:

(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) the officers’ reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of danger to police guarding the site; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that police are on their trail; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband.

United States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526, 528 (4th Cir. 1981). In Turner, the court found that exigent circumstances, the arrest of an individual in close proximity to an apartment where drug operations were taking place, allowed for warrantless entry into the apartment. Id. Finding that “circumstances beyond their [the officers’] control made it impractical for them to do so before entering the apartment” and finding that there was “a rational basis for their belief that” an individual in the apartment could have viewed the arrest and might destroy the “readily destructible” evidence, the district court’s finding that warrantless entry was justified was “amply supported by the evidence.” Id. at 528-29.

Here, due to the practice of drug dealers communicating with each other concerning arrests in the vicinity, the officers reasonably believed that the occupants of the Bonner Street residence would be alerted to the fact of Pierre’s arrest prior to issuance of the search warrant and any contraband would be destroyed or removed. Therefore, exigent circumstances justified the Sheriff’s Departments’ entry and search into the Bonner Street residence. Accordingly, defendant’s argument that the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution fails.

Comment: The court makes no mention of police created exigency by the fact of the arrest of one of the alleged conspirators. The officers had to know that. But, the independent source finding essentially resolved this without it having to be discussed.

Description of the search warrant was clear as to the property to be searched, identified by location and colors. Moreover, the officer was shown in the affidavit to have surveilled that property in the 72 hours before issuance of the warrant, so he knew where it was. United States v. Bailey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51384 (N.D. Okla. May 16, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.