IN: Officers entering wrong apartment with arrest warrant lacked Payton‘s reasonable belief suspect was there

Officers had an arrest warrant for one Hernandez, but they had only an anonymous tip where he would be found, and that was insufficient basis for an entry into defendant’s apartment, since an anonymous tip would not support a Terry stop either. Payton requires a “reasonable belief” that the suspect is home before an entry is permitted. The cases are divided whether that is “reasonable suspicion” or more, like just a little less than probable cause. This court does not have to decide which applies because the state cannot satisfy even the lowest standard of reasonable suspicion. The entry violated the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, and the evidence of an unrelated crime is suppressed. Duran v. State, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 408 (June 30, 2010):

The next issue is what the officers must reasonably believe. When the home that officers seek to enter is not that of the subject of the arrest warrant, officers must obtain a search warrant absent exigent circumstances. Steagald v. United States, …. Most jurisdictions require that the police have a reasonable belief that the dwelling is the residence of the subject of the warrant and that the subject is present at the time the officers attempt to enter on authority of an arrest warrant. …

It is well established that a reasonable belief that a suspect lives in an apartment building does not give the police the authority to enter every apartment in that building. Flaherty v. State, 443 N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982); Thompson v. State, 198 Ind. 496, 497, 154 N.E. 278, 279 (1926). Residents and owners of units in condominium and apartment buildings enjoy the same Fourth Amendment protection as people who live in single-family homes. This is equally true of large complexes and “very small” apartment buildings. The officers therefore required a reasonable belief that Hernandez resided behind the green door, not merely a reasonable belief that he resided somewhere in 2001 Broadway. …

Duran argues that even under the more relaxed view of “reasonable belief,” equating it to reasonable suspicion required for a Terry stop, the officers’ entry into his apartment violated the Fourth Amendment. The officers had reason to believe that Hernandez was residing in the apartment building at 2001 Broadway based on Hernandez’s mother’s report that he was living with her sister in that general area, and Maldonado’s having personally dropped Hernandez off with his possessions outside the building a few days earlier and seeing an older woman helping him into the building. Hernandez was on crutches and in a full leg cast, so it was reasonable to believe he had not relocated his residence in the few days since his ride home from the hospital.

Despite their reasonable belief as to Hernandez’s residence in the building, the police here lacked even reasonable suspicion that his residence was behind the green door. An anonymous tip, standing alone, does not justify a Terry stop. Alabama v. White, …. The officers had only statements of an unidentified man on the street who may or may not have had any connection to the apartment building. This anonymous informant did not enjoy the credibility that is afforded to one who is identified and is thereby exposed to potential civil or even criminal consequences for false information.