United States v. Harry Thomas Titus
445 F.2d 577, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8891 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless nighttime entry into a dwelling to arrest a felony suspect is permissible under the Fourth Amendment when exigent circumstances, such as a significant and justifiable risk of the suspect's imminent escape, make it impracticable to obtain a warrant.
Facts:
- On December 19, 1969, two men wearing army fatigue jackets, one armed with a sawed-off shotgun, robbed a bank.
- A few days later, an informant identified Lloyd Neville and Harry Titus as the robbers to the FBI.
- On the afternoon of December 23, a bank teller positively identified Neville from a photo array and tentatively identified Titus.
- That evening, around 9:00 PM, FBI agents arrested Neville, who confessed shortly before midnight and confirmed Titus was his accomplice.
- Neville informed the agents that Titus was at his girlfriend's apartment.
- The local police broadcast the news of Neville's arrest over their radio, and news media began making inquiries to the FBI.
- Believing Titus might flee upon hearing the news, a team of FBI agents went to the girlfriend's apartment around 1:30 AM without first obtaining an arrest warrant.
- Upon entering the dark apartment, agents found Titus nude and aiming a sawed-off shotgun at them; after he surrendered, agents also saw army fatigue jackets and a quantity of money from the robbed bank in plain view.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Titus was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in a three-count indictment for bank robbery.
- Titus filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during his arrest, arguing the warrantless arrest and subsequent search were unconstitutional.
- The district court held two suppression hearings and denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Titus on all counts.
- Titus (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do exigent circumstances, such as the risk of an armed felon's imminent escape after his accomplice's arrest has been publicized, justify a warrantless nighttime entry into a dwelling to effectuate an arrest for which there is probable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, C.J.
Yes. A warrantless nighttime entry into a dwelling to effect an arrest is justified by exigent circumstances when there is a significant risk that the suspect will escape. The court found that sufficient reason existed for why a warrant could not have been sought without an unreasonable risk of Titus's escape. The arrest of his accomplice, Neville, coupled with the police radio broadcast and media inquiries about it, created a substantial risk that Titus would be alerted and flee. The Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to take such a 'nicely calculated risk' of an armed robber's escape while they spend the substantial time required to obtain a warrant. Furthermore, the seizure of the shotgun, jackets, and money did not violate Chimel v. California because all items were lawfully seized under the 'plain view' doctrine, as agents were rightfully in the apartment and discovered the evidence inadvertently during the arrest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for arrests in a home. It provides a practical application of the doctrine, holding that a credible threat of a suspect's imminent flight, particularly an armed felon, can outweigh the strong preference for obtaining a warrant. The court's analysis focuses on the specific, time-sensitive risks created by the co-conspirator's arrest, setting a precedent for evaluating the reasonableness of police action in rapidly developing situations. This case highlights the balance between individual privacy rights in the home and the practical necessities of law enforcement in preventing the escape of dangerous suspects.
