United States v. Bryant Iwai
930 F.3d 1141 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into a home is justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment when the totality of the circumstances leads law enforcement officers to reasonably believe that the imminent destruction of evidence is occurring.
Facts:
- On August 4, 2015, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service intercepted a package addressed to Bryant Kazuyoshi Iwai's condominium that contained approximately six pounds of methamphetamine.
- The next day, agents replaced most of the methamphetamine with a non-narcotic substitute, left a small sample of the drug, and inserted a GPS tracking device with a sensor that would signal when the package was opened.
- An undercover postal inspector attempted to deliver the package to Iwai's unit, but Iwai, via cell phone, instructed the inspector to leave it with the front desk manager of his multi-story condominium building.
- At approximately 12:56 p.m., agents observed Iwai retrieve the package from the manager and take it into his condominium unit.
- At 3:15 p.m., more than two hours after Iwai entered his unit with the package, the sensor activated, signaling to agents that the package had been opened.
- Agents knocked on Iwai's door and announced their presence. An agent saw a shadowy figure approach the peephole and then retreat from the door without opening it.
- After announcing their presence again with no response, the lead agent heard noises from inside the unit that he described as sounding like plastic and paper rustling.
Procedural Posture:
- Bryant Iwai was charged with drug trafficking and firearm offenses in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (trial court).
- Iwai filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized from his condominium, arguing the warrantless entry by law enforcement was unconstitutional.
- After a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the entry was justified by exigent circumstances.
- Following the denial, Iwai entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the court's suppression ruling.
- Iwai (Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
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 into a suspect's residence violate the Fourth Amendment when law enforcement officers, after knocking and announcing their presence during a controlled delivery, observe evasive behavior and hear rustling noises from inside, leading them to believe evidence is being imminently destroyed?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tallman
No, the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by the exigent circumstance of imminent evidence destruction. The court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, which in this case provided a reasonable basis for the agents' belief. These circumstances included: (1) knowledge that a package containing a large quantity of methamphetamine was in Iwai's unit; (2) the activation of the beeper signaling the package had been opened; (3) the observation of a figure approaching and then retreating from the door's peephole; and (4) an experienced agent hearing rustling noises which he interpreted as evidence destruction. The court defers to the agent's experience-based inference and rejects the argument that officers' failure to seek an anticipatory warrant was fatal, citing the Supreme Court's holding that officers are not required to obtain a warrant as soon as probable cause exists.
Dissenting - Judge Bybee
Yes, the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The officers' actions were unreasonable because they failed to obtain a warrant at multiple opportunities. First, they should have secured an anticipatory warrant, as the package addressed to Iwai's residence was on a 'sure course' to its destination. Second, once Iwai took the package inside, the officers had over two hours to obtain a telephonic warrant but made no effort to do so. Third, the facts did not support a finding of exigency, as the 'rustling' of paper or plastic is not indicative of methamphetamine destruction, which is typically accomplished by flushing or burning. Finally, any exigency was impermissibly created by the police, whose coercive 'knock and talk'—conducted by a seven-officer team in tactical gear with a battering ram—went far beyond what a private citizen could do and amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the breadth of the 'totality of the circumstances' test for exigent circumstances, granting significant deference to law enforcement's on-the-ground interpretation of ambiguous events like noises or movements. By declining to require officers to seek an anticipatory warrant, the ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedent in Kentucky v. King, potentially reducing the incentive for police to obtain warrants in controlled delivery situations. The case highlights the ongoing tension between a lawful 'knock and talk' and coercive police tactics that may create the very exigency used to justify a warrantless search, a line which the majority and dissent draw in starkly different places.
