United States v. Ellis
499 F.3d 686, 2007 WL 2410063, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20448 (2007)
Rule of Law:
Officers cannot justify a warrantless entry into a home based on exigent circumstances solely because they hear movement inside after knocking, unless that movement is clearly distinguishable from normal household activity and indicates evidence destruction.
Facts:
- DEA agents observed a drug supplier visit a duplex on 40th Street immediately after supplying drugs for a controlled buy.
- Lacking a warrant, a team of agents and police officers decided to conduct a 'knock and talk' investigation at the 40th Street home.
- The officers surrounded the home, positioning themselves at the front, side, and back doors.
- Officers McNeil and Chu knocked on the front door and asked the occupant, Ellis, for consent to enter, which Ellis refused.
- Officer Lopez, positioned at the side door, heard running footsteps and movement inside the house but did not hear the conversation at the front door.
- Believing the occupants were destroying evidence based solely on the sound of movement, Officer Lopez and Officer Chu broke down the side door and entered the home.
- Upon entering, the officers detained the occupants and found cocaine residue, later obtaining a warrant to find more drugs and a firearm.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Ellis with possession of cocaine in excess of 500 grams.
- Ellis filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his home, arguing the warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment.
- A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to suppress.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation in full, ruling that probable cause and exigent circumstances existed.
- Ellis entered a guilty plea but legally reserved his right to appeal the specific ruling on the search legality.
- Ellis appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 sound of movement within a home, heard by an officer during a warrantless 'knock and talk' investigation, constitute sufficient probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify forcibly entering the residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kanne
No, the sounds of movement inside a home following a police knock do not inherently create probable cause or exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. The court reasoned that warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable. In this instance, Officer Lopez, who made the decision to break in, could not rely on the suspicious nature of Ellis's refusal at the front door because that information was never communicated to him. Focusing solely on what Lopez knew—that there was movement inside—the court found this insufficient because movement is a natural reaction when someone knocks on a door. The court distinguished this case from precedents where officers heard specific sounds of destruction (like flushing toilets) or flight. Allowing police to create exigent circumstances simply by knocking and waiting for footsteps would effectively eliminate the warrant requirement for any home with a tenuous connection to drugs.
Analysis:
This decision places a significant check on the police tactic known as 'knock and talk.' It prevents law enforcement from manufacturing 'exigent circumstances' (emergencies) to bypass the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The court clarified that the natural reaction of occupants to move around when police knock cannot be used as a pretext for a warrantless raid. Furthermore, the decision enforces a strict standard for the 'collective knowledge' doctrine, ruling that knowledge cannot be imputed from one officer to another to build probable cause unless they actually communicate that information.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Ellis (2007)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"