United States v. Ronald Ray Diaz
491 F.3d 1074, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14837 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, an arrest warrant provides law enforcement with the authority to enter a suspect's residence if they have a 'reason to believe' the suspect is within, a standard equivalent to probable cause that is judged by the totality of the circumstances and does not require direct, contemporaneous evidence of the suspect's presence.
Facts:
- Ronald Ray Diaz lived and worked from his home as a mechanic on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
- Over the previous 18 months, police had visited Diaz's home three or four times, and he had been present on all but one occasion.
- Diaz had previously told officers that he could usually be found at his house during the day.
- On February 23, 2005, a federal grand jury issued a warrant for Diaz's arrest on firearms charges.
- That afternoon, government agents went to Diaz's home to execute the warrant.
- The agents observed two unidentified people near a red SUV, but Diaz's own black SUV was not in sight.
- After about an hour and a half of surveillance, during which the red SUV left with one person, agents knocked on the door, announced their presence, and received no response.
- The agents then forcibly entered the home but found no one inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Government agents, having entered Ronald Ray Diaz's home, observed a baggie of suspected drugs in plain view.
- The agents then obtained a search warrant, re-entered the home, and seized methamphetamine and drug equipment.
- Diaz was charged in U.S. District Court with being a drug user and a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
- Diaz filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the agents' initial entry into his home was unlawful.
- The district court, a court of first instance, heard testimony and denied Diaz's motion to suppress.
- A jury subsequently convicted Diaz on both counts.
- Diaz (appellant) appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing against the United States (appellee).
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 home, pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, violate the Fourth Amendment when their 'reason to believe' the suspect is present is based on the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect's known habits, rather than direct observation at the time of entry?
Opinions:
Majority - Clifton, Circuit Judge
No, the entry does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The 'reason to believe' standard required by Payton v. New York for entering a suspect's home with an arrest warrant is equivalent to the probable cause standard, which is evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances. The court reasoned that this standard does not require direct evidence of a suspect's presence at the particular time of entry. In this case, the agents' belief was reasonable based on several factors: Diaz had told them he was usually home during the day, he worked from home, and he had been present during nearly all prior police visits. The circumstantial evidence suggesting his absence—such as his car not being visible and no one answering the door—was not strong enough to render the agents' belief unreasonable, especially since they had encountered similar circumstances in the past when Diaz was in fact home.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'reason to believe' standard within the Ninth Circuit by explicitly equating it with the flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test for probable cause. It establishes that law enforcement can rely heavily on a suspect's known patterns of life and general habits to justify entering a home with an arrest warrant. The ruling provides officers with significant leeway, affirming that circumstantial evidence is sufficient and that they are not required to obtain direct, contemporaneous proof of a suspect's presence, which could otherwise make executing arrest warrants at a residence much more difficult.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Ronald Ray Diaz