OH8: Stepping back when police at door say “you’re under arrest” is not invitation to enter

When defendant answered his door, the police said they were there to arrest him, and he stepped back, the police did not have a right to enter under Payton. The plain view on the sweep thereafter was suppressed. State v. Maddox, 2013 Ohio 1544, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 1424 (8th Dist. April 18, 2013):

[*P11] In short, if the Payton guarantee of privacy within the home is to have force and effect, it follows that answering a knock on the door does not imply a right of entry.

[*P12] The facts of this case demonstrate the point. Maddox had no idea that the police were outside his door when he opened it, so he could not be said to have voluntarily exposed himself to view of the police. He lived on the fifth floor of a multi-level, apartment building. What is more, the evidence showed that the doors to the building were locked and that visitors had to be “buzzed in” for entry. The police detectives gave conflicting testimony as to how they entered the building: one detective said they were buzzed in; the other detective said that they walked into the building without being buzzed in and that he could not recall if the building doors were locked. It was clear, however, that Maddox did not admit them into the building. Maddox testified that after hearing a knock on his door, he did not look through the peephole of the door before opening it. But even if he did, the detectives were in plain clothes and did not announce themselves as the police when they knocked. So unlike the facts in Vaneaton, Maddox did not open his door and knowingly expose himself to view of the police.

Back to blog