United States v. Ramirez
676 F.3d 755, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8451, 2012 WL 1432062 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless police entry into a hotel room is justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment only when officers objectively demonstrate a reasonable belief that evidence will be imminently destroyed, and this exigency was not impermissibly created by their own Fourth Amendment-violating conduct.
Facts:
- On June 29, 2009, officers arrested Juan Perez and Juan Amaya-Armenta at the Omaha Greyhound bus terminal with heroin in their shoes.
- Perez informed officers he was traveling with a third male, later identified as Carlos Ramirez, who also had heroin in his shoes.
- Officers discovered an identification card for Hector Cruz in abandoned bags, and learned from the bus driver that three other passengers, Luis Ibarra-Penuelas, Hector Cruz, and Carlos Ramirez, were missing from the bus.
- Officers tracked Ramirez, Ibarra-Penuelas, and Cruz as they took multiple cabs between hotels (Best Western, Comfort Inn) and a McDonald's, eventually checking into room 220 at the Econo Lodge approximately 2.5 hours after the initial arrests.
- At the Comfort Inn, surveillance video revealed two of the men walking "heavily-footed," suggesting they might be carrying heroin in their shoes.
- Six officers arrived at Econo Lodge room 220, where one officer attempted to swipe a key card provided by the desk clerk, but it did not work.
- An officer then blocked the peephole, knocked on the door, and announced "housekeeping."
- Hector Cruz partially opened the door, and upon seeing the officer and his badge, attempted to push the door shut.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Ramirez was charged with drug offenses in federal district court.
- Ramirez filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the hotel room raid, arguing the search was illegal and conducted without a warrant.
- A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding exigent circumstances (imminent destruction of evidence) justified the entry.
- The federal district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and denied Ramirez's motion to suppress.
- Carlos Ramirez appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 exigent circumstances exception justify a warrantless police entry into a hotel room to prevent the destruction of evidence when officers, after failing to use a key card, knocked and announced "housekeeping," and an occupant attempted to close the door, without prior objective evidence of imminent evidence destruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Beam, Circuit Judge
No, the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception does not justify the warrantless entry into Ramirez's hotel room because the officers lacked objective evidence of imminent evidence destruction prior to their entry, and Cruz's attempt to close the door, without more, was an exercise of his constitutional rights. The court found that the government failed to meet its heavy burden to demonstrate an urgent need for a warrantless search. While the officers had reasonable suspicion the men possessed heroin and were attempting to elude police, there was no objective evidence suggesting the men in room 220 knew they were being tracked or would imminently destroy evidence. The court emphasized that an occupant has no obligation to open the door or to allow entry, even when officers knock and announce their presence, citing Kentucky v. King. Cruz's attempt to shut the door after officers identified themselves was within his rights and, without additional incriminating sounds or actions, did not create an exigency. The court distinguished this case from precedents where specific evidence (like sounds of destruction or a known immediate connection between arrested individuals and those in the dwelling) supported an imminent destruction claim. The court declined to rule on whether the officers created an exigency, finding the initial entry unsupported by any exigency at all, and thus reversed Ramirez's conviction.
Dissenting - Riley, Chief Judge
Yes, a reasonable police officer would believe exigent circumstances justified entering the hotel room to prevent the destruction of evidence. Chief Judge Riley argued that, objectively viewing the totality of the circumstances, Cruz's attempt to shut the door after officers identified themselves, combined with the extensive pre-entry information (two co-conspirators arrested with heroin, one-way cash tickets, abandoned bus trip, multiple hotel changes by cab, "heavy-footed" walking indicating heroin in shoes), transformed the risk of evidence destruction into a near certainty. The dissent believed it was reasonable to infer the men left the bus station because they observed the arrests of their co-conspirators and were trying to evade law enforcement, disputing the majority's characterization of this as mere speculation. While an occupant can refuse entry, Cruz's act of closing the door, in context with the suspicious circumstances, provided an additional justification for immediate police action. Furthermore, the dissent contended that the officers did not impermissibly create the exigency because their attempt to use the key card, though potentially a Fourth Amendment violation if successful, was a failed attempt and did not create the exigency; nor did their knocking on the door violate the Fourth Amendment, in line with Kentucky v. King. Therefore, the exigent-circumstances exception should apply.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for establishing exigent circumstances based on the imminent destruction of evidence, especially in the context of hotel rooms, which are afforded similar Fourth Amendment protections as homes. It reinforces that an occupant's refusal to open a door or attempt to close it upon police presence, without more, does not automatically create an exigency warranting warrantless entry. The court distinguished between reasonable suspicion of drug possession and objective evidence of imminent destruction, placing a heavy burden on the government. The ruling emphasizes the objective standard for assessing exigent circumstances and the importance of police conduct not impermissibly creating the exigency by violating the Fourth Amendment themselves. It provides a cautionary tale for law enforcement to obtain warrants when time allows and concrete signs of destruction are absent, thus protecting individual privacy rights against overzealous police action.
