United States v. Sikut
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35995, 2007 WL 773883, 488 F.Supp.2d 291 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for searches and seizures applies unless an exception, such as exigent circumstances or plain view, is established, and the scope of any warrantless entry based on exigency must be strictly limited to addressing the immediate emergency.
Facts:
- On March 20, 2005, at 3:52 p.m., Town of Amherst police received an anonymous 911 call reporting a 'domestic' at 429 Third Avenue, the residence of Craig E. Sikut’s parents, describing sounds like a 'physical fight' and 'rumbling down the stairs.'
- The 911 dispatcher notified responding Officer Kevin Stephens that a similar anonymous 911 call in January 2005 from the same address had turned out to be an elderly male falling, and Stephens had investigated that prior call.
- Officers Stephens, Scioli, and later Lieutenant McGonagle arrived at the Sikut apartment and spent approximately 45 minutes attempting to contact residents, but found no signs of activity or obvious disturbance and could not confirm the residents were home.
- Mr. and Mrs. Sikut, Craig E. Sikut’s parents, left the residence by car at approximately 4 p.m. without being noticed by the officers.
- Eventually, Officers McGonagle, Stephens, and Scioli entered the Sikut apartment through an unlocked patio door, and after searching, found Craig E. Sikut sleeping in an upstairs bedroom, determining no one was injured or in danger.
- Despite the initial emergency concern being resolved, the officers continued to question Sikut about his identity, who provided a business card with a discrepancy in his middle initial and claimed to be a federal agent, prompting a warrant check.
- While Officer Stephens performed the warrant check outside, Sikut attempted to push Officer Scioli out of the doorway and close the door on his foot, leading Scioli and McGonagle to re-enter the apartment.
- After Stephens's warrant check confirmed two outstanding local warrants for Sikut (a violation and a misdemeanor), Sikut was arrested and placed in a patrol car, after which Stephens re-entered the apartment to search Sikut’s briefcase and computer case, discovering what appeared to be fraudulent federal identification badges and a computer with a White House seal.
Procedural Posture:
- Craig E. Sikut was charged in a three-count indictment on June 7, 2006, for various offenses including possessing false identification documents.
- Sikut filed a motion to suppress evidence and for non-dispositive relief in the United States District Court, W.D. New York, on July 20, 2006.
- The Government filed its response and cross-motion for discovery on August 4, 2006.
- An evidentiary hearing on Sikut’s motion to suppress was conducted on August 24, 2006, and continued on September 1, 2006.
- The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio on October 17, 2006, for all pretrial matters.
- On March 8, 2007, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report, Recommendation, recommending that Sikut’s motion to suppress be granted.
- The Government filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 22, 2007.
- Sikut filed a response to the Government’s objections on April 17, 2007.
- Oral argument on the objections was held on May 11, 2007.
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 require suppression of evidence seized without a warrant when police officers’ initial entry into a residence was not objectively justified by exigent circumstances, or when their continued presence and subsequent re-entry and search exceeded the scope of any initial exigency?
Opinions:
Majority (adopting Report and Recommendation) - Arcara, Chief Judge
Yes, the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of the evidence seized without a warrant. The Court adopted the proposed findings of Magistrate Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation. Even assuming, for argument's sake, that initial exigent circumstances were present and the arrest was proper, suppression is still required because officers had no legal justification to re-enter the apartment after the arrest to conduct a warrantless search of Craig E. Sikut’s briefcase, computer case, or computer. At that point, any exigency had dissipated, and the officers had determined no one was injured. If they had probable cause to believe evidence of a crime remained, they should have applied for a search warrant. The 'plain view' exception was inapplicable because the incriminating character of Sikut's items was not immediately apparent and required a further search, violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
Report and recommendation (adopted by Majority) - Foschio, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes, Craig E. Sikut’s motion to suppress should be granted. The government failed its 'heavy burden' to establish exigent circumstances for the initial warrantless entry. The anonymous 911 call was objectively unreliable, particularly because a prior similar call from the same address had proved unfounded, and the officers' own statements and prolonged delay (45 minutes) undermined any claim of objective urgency. Even if exigent circumstances justified initial entry, they terminated immediately upon the officers finding Sikut unharmed and determining no other injured persons or signs of disturbance. The officers' continued presence, investigation of Sikut's identity, and subsequent re-entry after his arrest exceeded the strictly circumscribed scope of any exigency. The plain view doctrine did not apply because the incriminating character of Sikut's possessions was not immediately apparent, and the officers were not lawfully in a position to discover them after the exigency ended and they re-entered. The evidence seized was 'fruit of the poisonous tree' from the illegal entry and subsequent unauthorized searches, and no exceptions to the exclusionary rule (like inevitable discovery or independent source) applied, especially given the minor nature of Sikut's outstanding warrants.
Analysis:
This case underscores the strict limits on the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, particularly in scenarios involving domestic dispute calls. It reinforces that police actions must be objectively reasonable and tightly circumscribed by the immediate emergency that justifies the initial entry. The decision highlights that a lack of immediate, corroborating evidence of an ongoing emergency, coupled with delays in entry or a history of unfounded calls, can negate exigency. Furthermore, it clarifies that once an emergency dissipates, any continued presence or subsequent re-entry and search requires a new warrant or a distinct, valid exception, preventing police from using an initial exigency as a pretext for a broader exploratory search.
