United States v. Bain
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20032, 874 F.3d 1, 2017 WL 4563821 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The warrantless insertion of a key into an apartment lock by police to gain information constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. However, evidence obtained from a subsequent warrant that relied on information from such an unconstitutional search is not subject to the exclusionary rule if the officers relied in good faith on the magistrate's issuance of the warrant.
Facts:
- The DEA began investigating Yrvens Bain, who had prior drug trafficking convictions.
- A cooperating witness made two controlled buys of heroin from Bain.
- Following the second buy, Bain was observed entering and leaving a multi-family building at 131 Laurel Street in Malden, Massachusetts.
- Officers went to 131 Laurel Street to arrest Bain based on a criminal complaint.
- Bain emerged from the front door of the building, walked to his car, and was placed under arrest.
- In a search incident to arrest, officers seized a set of keys from Bain's person.
- Officers used the seized keys to open the main door of 131 Laurel Street.
- Inside, officers tried the keys on three apartment doors, finding that they opened the lock to Unit D on the second floor.
Procedural Posture:
- Based in part on the key-turn, officers applied for and received a search warrant for Unit D from a federal magistrate judge.
- A search of Unit D pursuant to the warrant uncovered a firearm and a significant quantity of heroin mixed with fentanyl.
- In the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Yrvens Bain filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in Unit D.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling that while the key-turn was an unreasonable search, the evidence was admissible because the officers had relied in good faith on precedent.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Bain on drug and firearm charges.
- Bain (appellant) appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 police officer's warrantless act of inserting a key into the lock of a private apartment door to determine if it fits constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Kayatta, Circuit Judge
Yes, a police officer's warrantless act of inserting a key into an apartment lock to gain information is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that under the trespassory test articulated in Florida v. Jardines, a physical intrusion into a home's curtilage for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a search. An apartment door lock is within the home's curtilage, as it is intimately tied to the home and used to bar unwelcome entry. The act of trying a key in the lock exceeds the implicit social license that permits visitors to approach a door and knock. However, the court found the evidence should not be suppressed under the good-faith exception from United States v. Leon. Although the warrant was based on the unconstitutional key-turn, the officers could rely in good faith on the magistrate's subsequent issuance of the warrant because the question of whether the key-turn was a search was a close legal call and not clearly settled at the time, making the officers' reliance on the warrant objectively reasonable.
Analysis:
This decision establishes for the First Circuit that turning a key in a residential lock is a Fourth Amendment search, strengthening privacy protections for the home's curtilage under the property-based framework of Florida v. Jardines. It distinguishes homes from 'effects' like cars or storage units, which receive less protection. The case significantly highlights the robustness of the Leon good-faith exception, demonstrating that it can save evidence from suppression even when a warrant is based on an unconstitutional act, provided the underlying legal issue was not clearly established and the officers fully disclosed the facts to the magistrate.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bain