United States v. Delva
858 F.3d 135, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9645, 2017 WL 2366489 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement can justify law enforcement's warrantless reentry into a residence or room after a protective sweep has concluded, if such reentry is objectively reasonable and necessary to address an urgent, on-site investigative need, such as privately questioning a suspect to determine ownership of newly discovered contraband in a crowded location.
Facts:
- In September 2012, Dominique Jean Philippe and Trevor Cole kidnapped and robbed a man and a woman in a Bronx apartment.
- Jean Philippe's brother, Gregory Accilien, brought duct tape and latex gloves to the apartment for the robbery.
- At Jean Philippe’s direction, Accilien brought his nephew, David Delva, to the apartment to assist in the robbery due to Delva's prior experience.
- Delva participated in the crime by guarding the victims and striking one of them with a mop handle.
- Law enforcement officers subsequently obtained an arrest warrant for Gregory Accilien.
- On June 4, 2013, approximately ten officers executed the arrest warrant at a small, 500-square-foot apartment on South Oak Drive.
- Inside, they found Accilien, Delva, two other adult men, a woman, and two children.
- Delva and Accilien shared a bedroom within the apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- David Delva filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to suppress drugs and a gun.
- Following a suppression hearing, Delva expanded his motion to also suppress his cellphone and letters seized during the same event.
- The district court denied the suppression motions, ruling that the items were in plain view and seized during a lawful protective sweep.
- After a trial, a jury convicted Delva on five counts, including conspiracy to commit kidnapping and robbery.
- Delva appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing the district court erred in denying his suppression motions.
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 the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit law enforcement officers to re-enter a bedroom, after a protective sweep has been completed and all occupants are secured, in order to privately question an arrestee and thereby validate the plain view seizure of evidence observed during that questioning?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kearse
Yes, the exigent circumstances exception permits the warrantless reentry. Although the district court erred in finding the evidence was seized during the protective sweep, the seizure was nonetheless lawful because the officers' reentry into the bedroom was justified by exigent circumstances. After the protective sweep concluded, the officers discovered drugs and a gun, creating an urgent need to determine ownership among the four men in the small apartment. To facilitate a candid interview and prevent intimidation, it was necessary to question Accilien privately, and the bedroom was the only unoccupied, practical space to do so. This immediate investigative necessity constituted an exigency that made the warrantless reentry objectively reasonable, and the cellphone and letters, which were in plain view upon reentry, were therefore lawfully seized.
Dissenting - Judge Jacobs
No, this court should not decide the issue of exigent circumstances for the first time on appeal. The government failed to raise the exigent circumstances argument before the district court, and consequently, Delva's counsel never had an opportunity to contest it. Because the government bears a 'heavy burden' to establish exigency and the inquiry is highly fact-dependent, the proper course is to remand the case to the district court for full briefing and a factual determination on whether this or any other exception to the warrant requirement applies.
Analysis:
This decision expands the application of the exigent circumstances doctrine beyond traditional emergencies like 'hot pursuit' or imminent destruction of evidence. It establishes that the practical necessities of an on-site investigation, such as the need for a private space to question suspects about newly discovered contraband in a crowded home, can themselves create an exigency justifying a warrantless reentry into a secured area. This precedent provides law enforcement with greater latitude to conduct immediate investigative steps inside a home post-arrest, potentially blurring the line between a completed protective sweep and a new, warrantless search. Future litigation will likely focus on defining the limits of what constitutes a sufficient 'investigative necessity' to trigger this exception.
