United States v. Earl Franklin Fluker
543 F.2d 709 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant in a small apartment building has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a locked common entryway shared with only one other tenant, requiring law enforcement to comply with the 'knock and announce' rule (18 U.S.C. § 3109) before forcibly entering that outer door to execute a search warrant for an individual apartment.
Facts:
- Willard Young and Earl Fluker rented two separate basement apartments in the same building.
- A common, locked doorway at the bottom of an outside stairway provided the only access to a small corridor leading to both apartment doors.
- Only Young, Fluker, and the landlord possessed keys to this locked outer door.
- On November 4, 1974, a confidential informant provided information to DEA agents about narcotics activities inside Young's apartment.
- The informant entered Young's apartment, returned to the agents with a balloon of heroin, and stated she had observed Young cutting heroin inside.
- Based on this information, DEA agents obtained a search warrant for Young's apartment.
- The agents approached the locked common doorway, forcibly kicked it open, and entered the corridor without first announcing their authority and purpose.
- After breaching the outer door, the agents entered Young's apartment, which was partially open, and arrested Young and John B. Foster, who was also present.
Procedural Posture:
- John B. Foster, Earl Fluker, and Willard Young were charged with federal narcotics violations in United States District Court.
- Prior to trial, the defendants filed motions to suppress evidence obtained from the searches, arguing the search warrant was invalid and its execution was illegal.
- The district court denied the motions to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury found Young and Fluker guilty of possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy, and convicted Foster of simple possession.
- Appellants Foster, Fluker, and Young appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 a tenant of a small apartment building with a locked common entryway have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that common area, thereby requiring law enforcement officers to comply with the 'knock and announce' rule of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 before forcibly entering the outer door?
Opinions:
Majority - Tuttle, Circuit Judge
Yes. A tenant under these circumstances has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locked common area, making the 'knock and announce' requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3109 applicable to the outer door. The court's reasoning is based on the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test established in Katz v. United States. The court found that because the building contained only two basement apartments, the outer door was always locked, and access was limited to the tenants and landlord, Young had a greater expectation of privacy than tenants in a large, multi-unit complex. The court also noted that the proximity of Young's apartment door to the outer door meant an announcement would not have been a useless gesture. Finally, the court concluded that no 'exigent circumstances,' such as the imminent destruction of evidence or peril to the officers, existed to excuse non-compliance with the statute. Therefore, the unannounced, forcible entry violated § 3109.
Analysis:
This decision extends the Fourth Amendment's privacy protections and the statutory 'knock and announce' rule to the locked common areas of small multi-unit dwellings. It establishes that the controlling standard is not the traditional 'curtilage' test but the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test from Katz. The ruling creates a fact-specific inquiry for determining whether a common area is protected, focusing on factors like the number of units, control over access, and building configuration. This precedent requires law enforcement to be more cautious when executing warrants in apartment buildings, potentially applying 'knock and announce' procedures at the first locked point of entry, not just the individual apartment door.
