United States v. Anthony Anthon
648 F.2d 669 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless search of a dwelling or hotel room is unconstitutional unless it falls within a specifically established exception. An arrest occurring in a public space outside the dwelling does not, by itself, create an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry and search of the interior.
Facts:
- DEA agents Lester Tuell and Robert Hastings, acting undercover, arranged to purchase one pound of cocaine from Craig Bunton and Robert Harris.
- Bunton informed the agents that his cocaine connection, Anthony Anthon, would be arriving from Miami, Florida the following day.
- On September 7, 1979, Bunton picked up Anthon from the Albuquerque airport and took him to the Airport Marina Hotel.
- Bunton later returned to Harris's residence with a pound of cocaine, where a sale to the undercover agents was attempted.
- Following the seizure of cocaine at Harris's house, agents went to the Airport Marina Hotel and arrested Anthon in the hallway outside his room.
- The arresting officers took Anthon, who was wearing a swimsuit, back into his hotel room, where they remained for thirty to forty minutes.
- While inside the room, officers discovered a vial of cocaine, a marijuana cigarette, and other personal items.
- Later at the DEA office, after receiving multiple Miranda warnings of contested adequacy, Anthon admitted that the one-pound cocaine deal was the 'heaviest deal he had ever done.'
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Anthon was charged in a federal indictment with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Anthon filed pre-trial motions to suppress evidence seized from his hotel room and statements he made to law enforcement officers.
- The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held a suppression hearing and denied both of Anthon's motions.
- Following a trial, a jury found Anthon not guilty of the conspiracy count but guilty of the count of possession with intent to distribute.
- Anthon appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless entry and subsequent search of a suspect's hotel room, conducted after the suspect has been lawfully arrested in the hallway outside the room, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrett, J.
Yes, a warrantless entry and search of a suspect's hotel room after an arrest in the hallway violates the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that a search incident to a lawful arrest is limited by Chimel v. California to the arrestee's person and the area within his immediate control. Since Anthon was arrested in the hallway, his hotel room was not within his immediate control. Furthermore, the government failed to demonstrate any exigent circumstances, such as hot pursuit or the imminent destruction of evidence, that would justify a warrantless entry under Vale v. Louisiana. However, the court held that the admission of the evidence found in the room (a small amount of cocaine and marijuana) was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the other evidence of guilt on the charge of possession with intent to distribute a large quantity of cocaine—including co-conspirator testimony and Anthon's own admissible confession about the 'pound deal'—was overwhelming.
Dissenting - Seymour, J.
The dissent argues that the conviction should be reversed because Anthon's incriminating statements about the 'pound deal' were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona and should have been suppressed. The government failed to meet its 'heavy burden' of proving the Miranda warnings were adequate, as the record indicates Anthon was never fully informed of his right to have counsel present during questioning or his right to appointed counsel before questioning resumed. Because the warnings were deficient, Anthon could not have knowingly and intelligently waived his rights, and his subsequent statements were not voluntary but were the product of custodial interrogation. Admitting this powerful confession could not be considered harmless, and the case should be remanded for a new trial without it.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the application of the harmless error doctrine to significant constitutional violations, specifically a Fourth Amendment illegal search. The court affirms the principle that an arrest outside a dwelling does not justify a warrantless search inside, thereby reinforcing the protections of Chimel. However, by finding the error harmless due to overwhelming other evidence, the case demonstrates that a conviction can stand even in the face of police misconduct. This creates a precedent where appellate courts may excuse constitutional violations if they believe the outcome would have been the same, potentially reducing the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule in cases with strong evidence of guilt.
