United States v. Johnny Vasquez-Algarin
2016 WL 1730540, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7889, 821 F.3d 467 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers with an arrest warrant may only forcibly enter a dwelling if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect resides at the dwelling and is present within at the time of entry.
Facts:
- In 2010, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Edguardo Rivera, a homicide suspect.
- Deputy U.S. Marshal Gary Duncan received information from another law enforcement officer and from street informants that Rivera was 'staying' or 'residing' at an apartment on North 13th Street.
- A task force led by Duncan went to the apartment with Rivera's arrest warrant, knocked, and received no response.
- The officers heard movement inside, a phone ringing and then stopping, and a dog barking and then ceasing, leading them to believe someone was present.
- The officers then forcibly entered the apartment.
- Inside, they discovered Johnny Vasquez-Algarin, not Rivera. Rivera did not live in the apartment and was not present.
- During a protective sweep, officers observed powder cocaine and drug paraphernalia in plain view.
- Based on these plain view observations, officers obtained a search warrant, conducted a full search, and discovered additional evidence leading to Vasquez-Algarin's arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Johnny Vasquez-Algarin was charged with federal drug offenses in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Vasquez-Algarin filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence found in his apartment, arguing the initial warrantless entry by officers was unconstitutional.
- The District Court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the officers had a 'reasonable belief' and 'probable cause' that the fugitive they were seeking was inside.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Vasquez-Algarin on all counts.
- Vasquez-Algarin appealed the District Court's denial of his suppression motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third 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 Fourth Amendment's 'reason to believe' standard, as established in Payton v. New York, require law enforcement officers to have probable cause that a suspect resides in and is present within a dwelling before they can forcibly enter to execute an arrest warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Krause, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The Fourth Amendment's 'reason to believe' standard requires law enforcement to have probable cause to believe a suspect both resides at and is present within a dwelling before making a forced entry with only an arrest warrant. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, particularly the tension between Payton v. New York (allowing entry into a suspect's own home with an arrest warrant) and Steagald v. United States (requiring a search warrant for a third party's home), necessitates a robust standard to protect the sanctity of the home. Equating 'reason to believe' with probable cause is consistent with the Supreme Court's own post-Payton language in Maryland v. Buie and is the only conclusion that adequately protects innocent third parties from mistaken, warrantless entries based on mere suspicion or uncorroborated tips. Here, the officers' information about Rivera's residence was based on vague, second-hand tips and was insufficient to establish probable cause. Furthermore, the court rejected the good-faith exception, finding the officers' conduct was at least grossly negligent given the flimsy basis for the entry.
Analysis:
This decision formally resolves an open question in the Third Circuit, aligning it with a growing number of circuits that interpret Payton's 'reason to believe' standard as requiring probable cause. By rejecting a lesser standard, the court heightens the Fourth Amendment protection afforded to private residences, making it more difficult for law enforcement to justify forced entries based on uncorroborated or vague information. This holding strengthens the barrier against mistaken entries into the homes of innocent third parties and requires police to conduct more thorough investigations to establish a suspect's residence before executing an arrest warrant via forced entry.
