United States v. George W. Cephas
254 F.3d 488, 191 A.L.R. Fed. 699, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 13735 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into a home is justified by exigent circumstances when police have probable cause to believe that contraband is present and reasonably believe the evidence may be destroyed or removed before they can obtain a warrant.
Facts:
- A citizen informant flagged down Richmond Police Sergeant Scott Shapiro and reported that a man named Cephas was smoking marijuana with a 14-year-old girl in a nearby apartment.
- Sergeant Shapiro went to the address provided, a house divided into apartments, and knocked on the main door.
- A woman answered and directed Shapiro to an apartment upstairs rented by a man named Cephas.
- Shapiro knocked on Cephas's apartment door, and George Cephas opened it.
- Upon the door opening, Shapiro observed a young girl sitting inside and detected a strong smell of marijuana coming from the apartment.
- Shapiro asked if he could come inside to speak with Cephas.
- In response, Cephas attempted to slam the door shut.
- Shapiro then pushed his way into the apartment to secure the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- George Cephas was indicted in federal district court on several drug and firearm possession charges.
- Cephas filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment, arguing the warrantless entry was unconstitutional.
- The district court held a suppression hearing and granted Cephas's motion, ruling that the initial tip was insufficient under Florida v. J.L. and suppressing all evidence found as a result.
- The government, as the appellant, appealed the district court's suppression order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 warrantless entry into a home violate the Fourth Amendment where an officer, investigating a face-to-face tip, develops probable cause upon smelling marijuana when the door is opened and then enters because he reasonably believes the occupants will destroy the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Widener
No, the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances. The officer's actions leading up to the entry were lawful; investigating a tip by knocking on a door is not a search. When Cephas voluntarily opened the door, he exposed the smell of marijuana and the sight of the young girl, which corroborated the informant's tip and provided the officer with probable cause to believe illegal activity was occurring. Cephas's attempt to slam the door, combined with the readily destructible nature of marijuana, created exigent circumstances—a reasonable belief that evidence would be destroyed—justifying the officer's immediate, warrantless entry to secure the premises while a warrant was sought.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement in the context of a "knock and talk" investigation. It distinguishes the facts from cases like Florida v. J.L. by showing that while an uncorroborated tip alone may not justify a search, information lawfully obtained by an officer's own senses during a consensual encounter at a doorway can create probable cause. The ruling establishes that an occupant's attempt to close the door on police after revealing evidence of contraband can trigger the exigent circumstances necessary for a warrantless entry, as it signals an intent to destroy evidence.
