United States v. Duane D. Hill
430 F.3d 939, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26771, 2005 WL 3310444 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment, a warrantless entry into a home is justified when police have a legitimate and reasonable concern for their safety or the safety of others, which can arise from unexpected and dangerous events during an arrest outside the residence.
Facts:
- A law enforcement task force was conducting surveillance on Duane D. Hill's home to execute an arrest warrant for aggravated robbery.
- Officers arrested Hill as he was at the door to his screened-in porch.
- During the arrest, Detective Jeffrey Wishard saw another man inside the house look at the officers and then run deeper into the residence.
- Detective Wishard asked Hill's wife, who was standing in the entryway, who else was in the house.
- Hill's wife falsely replied that no one else was there.
- Fearing the unidentified man might be retrieving a weapon, Detective Wishard entered the home to ensure officer safety.
- Once inside, Detective Wishard saw a shotgun in plain view, and other officers conducting a protective sweep found a handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle, also in plain view.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Duane D. Hill for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Hill filed a motion to suppress the firearms in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, arguing the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- A U.S. Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing and issued a report and recommendation to deny the motion, finding the search was justified by exigent circumstances.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Hill's motion to suppress.
- Hill entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the court's denial of his motion.
- Hill, as the appellant, appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit a warrantless entry into a home when police, while making an arrest outside, observe an unknown person retreat back into the house, creating a reasonable fear for officer safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Lay, Circuit Judge
Yes. A warrantless entry into a home is permissible under the exigent circumstances exception when officers have a legitimate and reasonable concern for their safety. The court found Detective Wishard's concern for safety was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. These circumstances included the violent nature of the crime for which Hill was being arrested (aggravated robbery), the unexpected action of the unidentified man running back into the house upon seeing law enforcement, and the lie told by Hill's wife about the man's presence. Citing United States v. Vance, the court held that an officer's reasonable fear that an individual may be retrieving a weapon can justify a warrantless entry. The court distinguished this case from Vance by noting that the unexpected nature of the exigency here, combined with the non-compliance of the man and the deception by the wife, made the safety concerns no less compelling than a situation where officers had pre-arrest notice of danger.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the officer safety prong of the exigent circumstances doctrine, clarifying that the exigency does not need to be known to officers before an arrest begins. The ruling establishes that rapidly unfolding, unexpected events at the scene of an arrest can create a reasonable fear for safety sufficient to justify a warrantless home entry. It emphasizes a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, allowing courts to consider factors like the suspect's alleged crime, the actions of third parties, and deceptive statements by occupants. This precedent provides law enforcement with justification for entering a home during an arrest outside if another person's suspicious actions create a potential threat.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Duane D. Hill