United States v. Barrera
464 F.3d 496 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest warrant for a suspect founded on probable cause carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling if law enforcement officers have a reasonable belief that the suspect both resides at the dwelling and is present within at the time of entry.
Facts:
- Deputy U.S. Marshal Alejandro Ramos was tasked with executing an arrest warrant for Jose Barrera, a known drug trafficker.
- Ramos determined that Jose's official address was no longer valid but learned Jose had previously been arrested at 1209 St. Michael Street.
- A bail bondsman confirmed that Jose had listed the St. Michael address as his place of residence.
- A Laredo police officer informed Ramos that Jose was known to drive three specific luxury vehicles and that on October 9, 2003, all three vehicles were parked at the St. Michael address.
- Officers conducted a traffic stop on a Corvette leaving the residence, driven by Mauro Barrera, another brother, who stated the house belonged to Juan Barrera and that Juan was home, but he had not seen Jose.
- After officers arrived at the St. Michael residence, Juan Barrera eventually answered the door wrapped in a towel.
- As Juan backed away from the door with his hand behind his back, he dropped an object that made a sound, which was later identified as a firearm.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Barrera was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Barrera filed a motion to suppress the firearm evidence, arguing the law enforcement entry into his home was an unconstitutional search.
- The district court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion, ruling that the officers had a reasonable belief to enter the home to execute an arrest warrant for Barrera's brother, Jose.
- Following a stipulated bench trial, the district court found Juan Barrera guilty and sentenced him to 57 months in prison.
- Juan Barrera (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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:
Do law enforcement officers have a reasonable belief that a suspect resides at and is present within a third party's home, thereby permitting entry under the Fourth Amendment to execute an arrest warrant, based on information that the suspect was previously arrested there, listed it as his residence with a bail bondsman, and vehicles he used were parked outside?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
Yes, law enforcement officers had a reasonable belief that the suspect resided at and was present within the home. An arrest warrant allows entry into a dwelling when officers possess a 'reasonable belief,' based on the totality of the circumstances, that the suspect lives there and is inside. In this case, Deputy Ramos's belief was supported by several key facts: Jose had previously been arrested at that address, he had listed it as his residence with a bail bondsman, his other known address was invalid, and three vehicles he was known to use were present at the location. This cumulative information distinguishes the case from Steagald v. United States, where officers had only a tenuous link between the suspect and the third-party home. The court found that the investigation, while not exhaustive, was sufficient to surpass the threshold for the 'reason to believe' standard established in Payton v. New York, making the entry lawful.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'reasonable belief' standard for entering a third-party residence to execute an arrest warrant within the Fifth Circuit. It affirms that the standard is based on the totality of the circumstances and can be satisfied by a combination of circumstantial evidence, such as the presence of a suspect's vehicles, and information from third-party sources. The ruling provides law enforcement with significant latitude, confirming that their belief need only be reasonable at the time of entry, not correct in hindsight. This case reinforces the distinction between the 'reasonable belief' needed for entry under an arrest warrant and the higher 'probable cause' standard required for a search warrant of a third party's home under Steagald.
