United States v. Clay
408 F.3d 214, 2005 WL 984129 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, the need to procure clothing or footwear for a partially clothed or barefoot arrestee constitutes an exigent circumstance, justifying an officer's warrantless entry or reentry into a room to retrieve those items for the arrestee's safety. Evidence of criminal activity discovered in plain view during such a lawful entry is admissible and can provide the basis for a subsequent search.
Facts:
- Titus Clay, a parolee, absconded from supervision.
- Probation and Parole Officer Randy Rabb received a tip that Clay was at a specific apartment and went there with other officers.
- The officers entered the apartment, found Clay asleep in a back bedroom, and placed him under arrest.
- Officers escorted the barefoot Clay from the bedroom into the living room.
- An officer, Sherry Cone, asked Clay where his shoes were, and he indicated they were in the bedroom he had just left.
- Officer Cone reentered the bedroom to retrieve Clay's shoes.
- Inside the bedroom, Officer Cone observed a bag of marijuana and photographs in plain view inside an unfilled aquarium on a table.
- Based on the discovery of the marijuana, the officers conducted a search of the bedroom and found two handguns.
Procedural Posture:
- Titus Clay was indicted in federal district court for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Clay filed a motion to suppress the firearms, arguing they were discovered during an unconstitutional search.
- The district court, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation, denied the motion to suppress.
- Clay was tried jointly with a co-defendant, Deveorise Atkins.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict against Clay.
- The district court sentenced Clay to 78 months in prison.
- Clay, as the appellant, appealed the conviction and sentence to the United States 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:
Does an officer's warrantless reentry into a bedroom, after an arrestee has been secured in another room, to retrieve shoes for the barefoot arrestee constitute an exigent circumstance that renders the reentry permissible under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Emilio M. Garza
Yes. An officer's warrantless reentry into a bedroom to retrieve shoes for a barefoot arrestee is justified by exigent circumstances. The court reasoned that law enforcement officers have a duty to take reasonable steps to address the safety of an arrestee, and an arrestee's partially clothed or barefoot status can constitute an exigency. Citing precedent from its own circuit (United States v. Wilson) and others, the court held that the potential personal safety hazard to Clay placed a duty on the officers to obtain appropriate footwear. Because Officer Cone's reentry into the bedroom was lawful under the exigent circumstances doctrine, her subsequent observation of the marijuana in the aquarium fell under the plain view doctrine. This plain view discovery, in turn, provided the officers with the necessary reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the subsequent search of the bedroom that uncovered the firearms.
Analysis:
This case solidifies and applies the principle that ensuring an arrestee's safety by retrieving clothing or footwear qualifies as an exigent circumstance justifying a limited, warrantless intrusion. The decision demonstrates the legal chain of justification: a permissible entry for a non-investigatory purpose (safety) can lead to a plain view discovery, which then provides the grounds (reasonable suspicion or probable cause) for a subsequent, more thorough search. This holding is particularly relevant for arrests made within or near a suspect's home, clarifying that officers' duties extend to mitigating risks posed by the arrestee's state of dress, which can legally place officers in a position to observe evidence they might otherwise not have seen.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Clay