United States v. Severo Escobar
805 F.2d 68, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33645 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
During an in-home arrest with a valid warrant, law enforcement may conduct a warrantless protective sweep of the premises if they have a reasonable belief that third persons may be present who could pose a threat or destroy evidence. Any evidence of a crime observed in plain view during such a lawful sweep is admissible.
Facts:
- Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials believed Severo Escobar was a central figure in a major cocaine importation and distribution ring.
- On January 13, 1984, law enforcement officers went to Escobar's Miami apartment with valid arrest warrants for Escobar and his son-in-law, Carlos Alfonso Lopez.
- Escobar admitted the agents into the apartment, where they arrested him in the entryway.
- While Escobar was being arrested, other agents fanned out to search for Lopez and any other individuals who might pose a threat.
- An investigator, drawn by light and noise from a bedroom, entered it and found two women. He also saw a submachine gun on the floor of an adjacent closet.
- After agents showed Escobar the submachine gun, he admitted to having more weapons and led agents to additional guns hidden under his bed.
- While in the bedroom, an agent saw an envelope on the nightstand from a company known to be a front for the drug conspiracy.
- The agent also saw papers with coded markings matching those on previously seized cocaine and a personal telephone book open to a co-defendant's beeper number.
Procedural Posture:
- Severo Escobar was indicted for federal narcotics violations in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Because Escobar fled to Colombia, he was tried and convicted by a jury in his absence (in absentia).
- After Colombia extradited Escobar to the United States, the district court judge imposed his sentence.
- Prior to trial, Escobar's counsel filed a motion in the district court to suppress evidence seized during the searches of his apartment.
- The district court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion, ruling the evidence was admissible.
- Escobar, the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the district court's refusal to suppress the evidence.
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 protective sweep of a residence and the subsequent seizure of weapons and documents in plain view violate the Fourth Amendment when officers are executing valid arrest warrants and have a reasonable belief that other persons may be present on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumbard, Circuit Judge
No. A warrantless protective sweep and subsequent seizures did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers may conduct a quick and limited security check of premises when making an arrest if they reasonably fear that other persons are present who may pose a threat or destroy evidence. In this case, the agents had not yet located Lopez and were alerted to the presence of others by light and sound coming from a bedroom, justifying the sweep. Because the initial entry and the protective sweep were lawful, the seizure of the submachine gun, other firearms, and incriminating documents fell under the plain view doctrine. The incriminating nature of the documents was immediately apparent to the agent due to his prior knowledge of the conspiracy, making their seizure permissible.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the scope of the protective sweep doctrine, clarifying that officers only need a reasonable belief that third persons might be on the premises, not that they are necessarily dangerous. It solidifies the principle that evidence discovered in plain view during a lawful protective sweep is admissible, thereby expanding law enforcement's ability to gather evidence during in-home arrests. The case also serves as a strong application of the plain view doctrine to documents, confirming that an officer's specialized knowledge from an ongoing investigation can make the incriminating nature of seemingly innocuous papers 'immediately apparent.'
