An arrest warrant for a defendant only permits an entry into his house when officers have reason to believe that he is home. Here, it was reasonable to conclude that the defendant was home, even though, as it turned out, he wasn’t. United States v. Brown, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3228 (E.D. Pa. January 16, 2008):<\/p>\n
An arrest warrant allows a police officer to enter a domicile in which a suspect lives, but only when there is reason to believe that the suspect is inside. Payton v. New York<\/em><\/a>, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the police are only allowed to enter a suspect’s home to make an arrest when they have probable cause to believe that the suspect is inside. United States v. Veal<\/em>, 453 F.3d 164, 167-68 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Agnew<\/em>, 407 F.3d 193, 196 (3d Cir. 2005).<\/p>\n
Here, the law enforcement officers who entered 5045 Irving Street had an arrest warrant for Mr. Brown, but did not have a search warrant for the 5045 Irving Street residence. It is undisputed that the residence was empty when the police entered, and Mr. Brown asserts that there is no evidence that there were any “signs of life” indicating that anyone was home.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
On October 23, 2006, Deputy Carroll and his team arrived at 5045 Irving Street around 5:45 a.m. (Id.<\/em> at 99-100.) Prior to entering, Deputy Carroll observed through the front window that there were lights and a television on inside the house, and that on a table in the front room there appeared to be some sort of food in a dish. (Id.<\/em> at 100.) In addition, a neighbor, after having been shown a photograph of Mr. Brown, identified Mr. Brown as the person he had seen in the house the night before. (Id<\/em>.) Based on these observations, asserts the Government, the officers had probable cause to believe Mr. Brown was inside the house at the time, and, therefore, their entry into the house to execute the arrest warrant was reasonable.<\/p>\n
The Court agrees. The documents cited by Deputy Carroll demonstrate ample independent connections between Mr. Brown and 5045 Irving Street–not the least of which being his undisputed ownership of the property–for a reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Brown resided at 5045 Irving Street. Because the Court finds Deputy Marshall’s observations credible and uncontradicted by any evidence currently in the record, including the contemporaneous “signs of life” such as the lights and television being on and remnants of a meal, the Court also concludes that when law enforcement personnel arrived to execute the arrest warrant on the morning of October 23, 2006 around 5:45 a.m., a time when many people are still at home, there were sufficient indicia to conclude that Mr. Brown was actually and currently present at 5045 Irving Street.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading