United States v. Mose Holland
755 F.2d 253, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 29031 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless arrests inside a person's home does not extend to the common hallways or vestibules of a multi-tenant building, as a tenant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such shared areas.
Facts:
- Mose Holland was a tenant in the second-floor apartment of a two-story, two-family house in Buffalo.
- The entrance to Holland's apartment was through a common hallway shared with the first-floor apartment.
- On February 4, 1983, Deputy Sheriff James Robinson, an acquaintance of Holland, rang the bell for Holland's apartment at the ground floor entrance.
- Holland left his apartment, walked down two flights of stairs to the ground-floor vestibule leading to the outer door.
- Recognizing Robinson, Holland opened the outer door while standing in the vestibule.
- Immediately upon Holland opening the door, Robinson drew his gun, displayed his badge, and placed Holland under arrest inside the common vestibule.
- Holland was not induced to open the door by police deception or coercion.
Procedural Posture:
- The Government brought criminal charges against Mose Holland in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.
- Holland filed a motion to suppress evidence and oral admissions that followed his warrantless arrest.
- The district court found that the arrest was supported by probable cause but ruled that it was an illegal warrantless arrest inside the home under Payton v. New York.
- The district court granted Holland's motion to suppress the evidence.
- The Government, as the appellant, appealed the district court's suppression order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 arrest, supported by probable cause, of a suspect in the common hallway of their multi-tenant building violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on warrantless arrests inside a home?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Graafeiland
No, a warrantless arrest in the common hallway of a multi-tenant building does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional protection established in Payton v. New York applies specifically to a suspect's 'home,' which is a place where one has an exclusive right to privacy and control. A common hallway, in which a tenant holds only a shared easement of way, does not qualify as part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes. Precedent in this Circuit has consistently held that tenants do not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common halls and lobbies of multi-tenant buildings. This provides a clear, bright-line rule for law enforcement, distinguishing the privacy of one's actual apartment from the public nature of shared common areas.
Dissenting - Newman
Yes, this warrantless arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. The proper analysis should be based on a reasonable expectation of privacy under Katz v. United States, not rigid property law concepts. Holland was using the vestibule as a necessary part of admitting a visitor to his home, a function that created a temporary zone of privacy. Given the extremely limited access to the hallway in the two-family house, it was intimately associated with his home. The majority's ruling unfairly penalizes individuals in older buildings without modern intercoms and ignores that the clearest boundary for police is the warrant requirement itself, which should have been followed here.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a bright-line rule within the Second Circuit, clearly excluding common areas of multi-tenant dwellings from the Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless in-home arrests established by Payton v. New York. The court prioritizes a clear, property-based standard for law enforcement over a more nuanced, fact-specific 'reasonable expectation of privacy' analysis in these spaces. This precedent provides police with greater certainty when making arrests in apartment buildings but may be seen as narrowing the scope of privacy protections for tenants, particularly those in smaller buildings where common areas are less public.
