United States v. Phillip Lauter
57 F.3d 212, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14546, 1995 WL 351457 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest warrant authorizes law enforcement to enter a suspect's residence to effectuate the arrest when they have a reasonable belief that the suspect resides there and is present, even if the residence's address differs from information in the warrant's supporting affidavit. Incident to such an arrest, officers may conduct a protective sweep of spaces immediately adjoining the arrest location from which an attack could be launched.
Facts:
- Special ATF Agent Graham obtained an arrest warrant for Phillip Lauter, a convicted felon, based on a confidential informant's (CI) tip that Lauter possessed a shotgun.
- The affidavit supporting the warrant stated Lauter lived in apartment 2R at 499 Williams Avenue, but the face of the arrest warrant itself did not list an address.
- Three days later, before executing the warrant, the same CI informed Agent Graham that Lauter had moved from apartment 2R to a basement apartment in the same building.
- The CI, whose father was the building's landlord, also provided Graham with a description of Lauter, the basement layout, and the specific apartment door.
- Graham and four other agents went to the basement apartment, pushed in the door after receiving no response, and found Lauter inside.
- The agents arrested Lauter in the first of two small rooms that comprised the apartment.
- After another agent escorted Lauter's girlfriend from the adjacent back room, Agent Graham entered that room to conduct a security sweep.
- During the sweep, Graham saw the stock of a shotgun protruding from underneath a bed and seized the weapon.
Procedural Posture:
- Phillip Lauter was charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Lauter filed a motion to suppress the firearm, arguing the agents unlawfully entered his apartment and conducted an impermissible search.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- Lauter entered a conditional guilty plea, which reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Lauter appealed the district court's judgment 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 law enforcement's entry into a suspect's new residence to execute an arrest warrant, based on a reasonable belief the suspect resides and is present there, and the subsequent seizure of a weapon in plain view during a protective sweep, violate the Fourth Amendment when the warrant's supporting documents listed a different address?
Opinions:
Majority - Altimari, Circuit Judge
No. The agents' entry into the basement apartment and subsequent seizure of the shotgun did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they had a reasonable belief Lauter resided there and was present, and the weapon was discovered in plain view during a lawful protective sweep. The court reasoned that under Payton v. New York, an arrest warrant gives police the limited authority to enter a dwelling where there is 'reason to believe the suspect is within.' The court clarified that the proper standard is 'reasonable belief,' a less stringent standard than probable cause. Here, the agents had a reasonable belief based on specific, timely information from a reliable confidential informant whose father was the landlord. The address in the supporting affidavit was not material to the probable cause determination for the arrest itself, and a suspect's change of address does not invalidate the warrant's authority. The court distinguished this case from Steagald v. United States, which applies to searches of a third party's home for a suspect, not the suspect's own residence. Regarding the search, the court applied Maryland v. Buie, which permits officers, incident to an arrest, to look in 'spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched' without needing probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The back room was immediately adjoining the arrest location, and the space under the bed was a place a person could hide. Since Agent Graham was lawfully in the room conducting a permissible protective sweep and the shotgun stock was in plain view, its seizure was constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'reasonable belief' standard, which is less demanding than probable cause, is sufficient for law enforcement to enter a suspect's residence to execute an arrest warrant. It reinforces the principle that an arrest warrant is for a person, not a place, granting officers operational flexibility to act on new intelligence about a suspect's location without returning to a magistrate for non-material updates. The ruling also solidifies the scope of a protective sweep under Maryland v. Buie, confirming that a cursory visual inspection of immediately adjoining spaces is automatically permissible for officer safety, regardless of suspicion.
