United States v. Samboy

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
433 F.3d 154 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A warrantless entry into a private dwelling is permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment when police have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the arrest of a drug courier will alert the supplier inside the dwelling, creating a likelihood that evidence will be destroyed.

Facts:

Following his arrest, Jose Miguel Padin agreed to cooperate with authorities and identified Alsenio Samboy as his cocaine supplier.
Police arranged for Padin to conduct a "controlled buy" of 125 grams of crack cocaine from Samboy via telephone.
Over a series of monitored calls, Samboy expressed hesitation but eventually agreed to send a courier, Claudin Mar Dellossantos, with the drugs to a prearranged location.
At 5:32 P.M., Samboy confirmed to Padin that Dellossantos was en route to the meeting point.
Police officers, who were surveilling Samboy's building, followed Dellossantos from the building to the meeting location.
The officers arrested Dellossantos and recovered 125 grams of crack and a set of keys to Samboy's apartment.
Immediately following Dellossantos's arrest, at approximately 6:00 P.M., several agents went to Samboy's fourth-floor apartment door while another agent was dispatched to obtain a search warrant.
The agents at the apartment knocked and announced their presence, but received no response.

Procedural Posture:

Alsenio Samboy was charged in U.S. District Court with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base.
Samboy filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his apartment.
The district court (trial court) denied Samboy's motion to suppress.
Following a trial, a jury found Samboy guilty on all counts.
The district court sentenced Samboy to two concurrent terms of 175 months in prison.
Samboy appealed the denial of his suppression motion and his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 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 entry into a drug supplier's home violate the Fourth Amendment when police, after arresting the supplier's courier, reasonably believe the courier's failure to return will alert the supplier and prompt him to destroy evidence?

Opinions:

Majority - Restani, J.

No, the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by exigent circumstances. While warrantless searches inside a home are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, an exception applies when exigent circumstances, such as the imminent destruction of evidence, create a compelling necessity for immediate action. The court found that the police had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that evidence destruction was likely. The police knew Samboy was in his apartment, had just dispatched his courier (Dellossantos), and that Dellossantos had been arrested and would not be returning. This failure to return would likely alert Samboy to the police presence, prompting him to destroy any remaining narcotics. The court rejected Samboy's argument that the police created their own exigency by delaying their application for a warrant, reasoning that the police were justified in waiting to corroborate their informant's tip and did not unreasonably or deliberately delay once probable cause was firmly established.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the application of the exigent circumstances doctrine in the context of controlled drug buys, particularly the 'destruction of evidence' rationale. It clarifies that the arrest of a courier can trigger a valid exigency to enter a supplier's home if the circumstances support a reasonable belief that the supplier will become aware of the arrest and destroy evidence. The case also affirms that police are not required to seek a warrant at the first plausible moment probable cause arises; they may continue their investigation to build a stronger case without being accused of 'manufacturing' an exigency, so long as they do not unreasonably or deliberately delay.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Samboy (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"