United States v. Paige
493 F. Supp. 2d 641, 2007 WL 1828020, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45947 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into a home to render emergency assistance is justified under the Fourth Amendment only if, based on the totality of the circumstances known to officers at the time of entry, it was objectively reasonable to believe that an urgent need existed to render aid or protect an occupant from imminent injury.
Facts:
- On July 4, 2006, at approximately 11:23 P.M., Buffalo Police responded to a 911 call reporting a person had been stabbed near 81 Brayton Street.
- Officer Stephen Schulz arrived at 81 Brayton at 11:24 P.M. and found the stabbing victim on the street; the victim later died at the hospital at 11:54 P.M.
- Officer Kevin Biggs received a phone call from an informant who observed an altercation in front of 531 West Utica Street, where Defendant Christopher Paige resided, but the informant did not see anyone enter 531 West Utica or observe that a stabbing had occurred.
- The informant told Officer Biggs that after the fight, Christopher Paige threw bicycles against the side of his building "in a frantic manner" and then left the scene.
- Detective Daniel Rinaldo, the senior officer on the scene, observed the area, noted the front door to Christopher Paige's apartment was ajar, a TV inside was on, no lights were on, and the area was a high-crime neighborhood.
- Police found no knife, bloody clothing, blood, or injured person at or near 531 West Utica Street.
- In a contemporaneous report filed the day after the incident, Officer Biggs stated that the firearm had been "recovered in plain view while a cursory search of apartment for homicide suspect."
Procedural Posture:
- On October 18, 2006, Defendant Christopher Paige was indicted with unlawful, knowing possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
- On November 13, 2006, Christopher Paige filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York to suppress evidence and for discovery material.
- On December 6, 2006, the Government filed its response to Christopher Paige's motion.
- On December 11, 2006, an evidentiary hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, where several Buffalo Police officers testified.
- On February 12, 2007, Christopher Paige submitted his Post-Hearing Memorandum of Law.
- On March 5, 2007, the Government filed its Memorandum of Law.
- On March 12, 2007, Christopher Paige filed his Reply Memorandum to the Government’s Memorandum.
- On May 11, 2007, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a combined Report and Recommendation and Decision and Order, granting Christopher Paige's motion for discovery material and recommending that his motion to suppress the firearm be granted.
- On May 24, 2007, the Government (appellant) filed objections to Magistrate Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation with the District Court.
- On June 12, 2007, Christopher Paige (appellee) filed a memorandum in opposition to the Government’s objections.
- On June 22, 2007, oral argument on the objections was held before Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara.
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 exigent circumstances exception permit law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless entry into a residence to search for potential victims if their belief that an emergency exists is based on mere surmise rather than objectively reasonable facts, particularly when there is no direct evidence connecting the initial crime scene to the residence or indicating a victim inside?
Opinions:
Majority - Arcara, Chief Judge, adopting Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge
No, the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception does not permit a warrantless entry into a residence to search for potential victims if the belief that an emergency exists is based on mere surmise rather than objectively reasonable facts, and without a sufficient nexus between the crime and the residence. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation, finding that the government failed to meet its heavy burden to establish the presence of an exception to the warrant requirement. The officers' warrantless entry into Christopher Paige's apartment was not objectively reasonable because no evidence connected the sole stabbing victim or any other participant in the altercation to Paige's apartment, nor was there any indication that anyone was injured inside. The information available to police prior to entry (a distant stabbing victim, no one observed entering the apartment, absence of bloodstains, the officers' delay in entry, and the lack of calls for help) negated any objectively reasonable belief in an emergency. Furthermore, the officers' admitted motivation to avoid being professionally "second-guessed" undermined the claim of a true emergency. Since the initial entry was unlawful, the "plain view" doctrine could not legitimize the seizure of the gun because the officers were not lawfully in a position to discover it, and lacked knowledge it was evidence of a crime. Therefore, the gun must be suppressed. However, Christopher Paige's spontaneous post-arrest statements were admissible as "acts of free will" sufficient to purge the taint of the unlawful entry and arrest, as they were not made in response to police questioning.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, particularly when the claimed exigency is to provide emergency assistance. It clarifies that law enforcement must demonstrate an objectively reasonable belief of an urgent need, not mere speculation, and that the nexus between the emergency and the specific location entered must be clear. The decision also illustrates the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine's limitations, showing that spontaneous statements by a defendant, even after an unlawful entry and arrest, may be admissible if they are acts of free will not prompted by police interrogation.
