{"id":3239,"date":"2010-03-23T07:21:31","date_gmt":"2009-07-11T17:52:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-07-11T17:52:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3239","title":{"rendered":"CA4: Under Payton<\/em> or Olson<\/em> a warrant authorized the entry for arrest"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whether a resident under Payton<\/a> or a guest under Olson<\/a>, the arrest in this case was with a warrant and the entry was justified by the arrest warrant. <\/p>\n

United States v. Kern<\/a>, 336 Fed. Appx. 296 (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

When a warrant has been issued authorizing the arrest of a suspect, law enforcement officers have “the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” Payton<\/a>, 445 U.S. at 603. Once an arrest has been made, officers are permitted to search “the arrestee’s person and the area within [the arrestee’s] immediate control.” Chimel v. California<\/a>, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted).<\/p>\n

Whether Kern was a resident at the farm or an overnight guest is inconsequential to the resolution of this appeal because Kern was properly arrested pursuant to valid warrants and the firearms seized were in an area within his immediate control. If Kern was a resident, Payton<\/a> permitted officers to enter the farm to effect his arrest. The same is true if Kern was an overnight guest as the privacy interest conveyed by this status, see Minnesota v. Olson<\/a>, 495 U.S. 91, 98-99, 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1990), placed him within the confines of Payton<\/a>. Nor may Kern complain that the entry onto the property to effect his arrest violated a third-party homeowner’s right to be free from an unreasonable search as “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.” Rakas v. Illinois<\/a>, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, we conclude the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3239","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3239","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3239"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3239\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3239"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3239"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3239"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}