United States v. Leland Carriger
541 F.2d 545, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7423 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A tenant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locked common areas of an apartment building, and a government agent's warrantless, unconsented entry into such an area constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Federal narcotics agents were investigating Charles Beasley to identify his heroin supplier, with Leland Carriger being a person of interest.
- On January 18, 1973, agents surveilled Beasley after an informant arranged a large heroin purchase, intending for Beasley to lead them to his source.
- Beasley drove to a twelve-unit apartment building owned by Carriger, where Carriger also resided, and entered through a locked main door.
- Agent Turner, who was stationed at the building, had previously confirmed that the entrance doors were locked and required a key or a buzzer for entry.
- After being unable to follow Beasley inside, Agent Turner slipped into the building without permission as several workmen were exiting, before the door automatically locked behind them.
- Inside the third-floor common hallway, Turner observed Beasley meet Carriger at the door of Apartment 303 and hand him a bag.
- Based on this observation, other agents were admitted into the building, forcibly entered Carriger's apartment, and seized heroin found in the apartment and on a nearby stairwell.
Procedural Posture:
- Leland Carriger was convicted by a jury in a federal district court (trial court) on three counts of violating federal drug laws.
- Prior to trial, Carriger filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment building, arguing the agent's initial entry was illegal.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress the key evidence, holding that the agent's entry into the building's common areas did not violate Carriger's reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Carriger (appellant) filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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:
Does a government agent's warrantless, unconsented entry into the locked common hallway of a private apartment building to conduct surveillance violate a tenant's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - McCree, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A government agent's warrantless, unconsented entry into the locked common hallway of a private apartment building violates a tenant's reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the 'trespass' doctrine, while no longer controlling after Katz v. United States, remains relevant to determining whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A tenant in a locked apartment building does not expect trespassers in the common areas and maintains a constitutionally protected interest in the security of the entire building against unlawful entry. The court rejected the distinction between a forcible entry and a 'peaceable' entry by guile, finding that in either case, the tenant's expectation of privacy is violated. Furthermore, the government's alternative argument—that the entry was justified by probable cause to arrest Beasley—fails because probable cause was lacking and, even if it existed, an arrest of one person cannot be used as a pretext to search another's home.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends the Fourth Amendment's 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard, established in Katz v. United States, to the locked common areas of multi-unit dwellings. It clarifies that such areas are not public spaces for constitutional purposes and that an officer's physical trespass, even if not forceful, is a key factor in violating a tenant's privacy rights. This precedent solidifies privacy protections for apartment dwellers, treating the secured common areas of their building as part of the protected curtilage of their home. It also reinforces the principle that law enforcement cannot use a potential arrest as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search of a third party's residence.
