United States v. Vasquez
638 F.2d 507 (1980)
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into a suspect's residence for a 'security check' after an arrest outside the premises is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if arresting officers have a reasonable belief that third persons are inside and that they are aware of the arrest and may destroy evidence, escape, or jeopardize officer safety.
Facts:
- As part of a narcotics investigation, Drug Enforcement Task Force agents began surveillance on an apartment building at 633 Grand Street on November 29, 1979, after seeing a primary suspect, Amparo Medina, and Orlando Vasquez enter.
- Throughout the evening, agents arrested Hernando Mesa, Clara Mesa, and Carlos Sanchez after each left the building in possession of cocaine.
- Agents then stopped three men, including one named Jaramillo, who exited the building. Jaramillo attempted to mislead the agents by falsely stating he had come from the second-floor apartment.
- The building's owner, Dora Wright, informed agents that Jaramillo and others had been in and out of the fourth-floor apartment all day, which she had rented to Orlando Vasquez.
- Agents arrested Orlando Vasquez and Essau Correa as they left the building.
- After Vasquez's arrest and after creating significant commotion while investigating Jaramillo's false claim about the second-floor apartment, agents decided to enter the fourth-floor apartment without a warrant, fearing others inside were now alerted and would destroy evidence.
- Dora Wright gave the officers a key to the fourth-floor apartment, which they used to enter.
Procedural Posture:
- Orlando Vasquez and five other defendants were charged with federal drug offenses in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- All defendants filed motions to suppress evidence seized during their arrests, alleging Fourth Amendment violations.
- The district court conducted a suppression hearing and largely denied the motions, though it did suppress evidence from the fourth-floor apartment that was not in 'plain view' during the initial security check.
- Following the ruling, all defendants except Vasquez entered conditional guilty pleas, preserving their right to appeal the suppression decision.
- A jury convicted Vasquez on charges of possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy.
- Vasquez and the other defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 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 warrantless entry into a suspect's apartment for a 'security check' violate the Fourth Amendment when the suspect is arrested outside the building, but officers have reason to believe other individuals are inside who are aware of police activity and could destroy evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Kearse, Circuit Judge
No, the warrantless entry for a security check does not violate the Fourth Amendment under these specific circumstances. While warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable, an exception exists for a 'security check' or 'protective sweep' if justified by exigent circumstances. The court applies a two-part test: officers must have (1) a reasonable belief that third persons are inside, and (2) a reasonable belief that those persons are aware of the arrest outside and might destroy evidence or pose a threat. Here, Jaramillo's attempt to divert the officers and his lack of a key or outerwear on a cold night created a reasonable belief that others remained in the fourth-floor apartment. The considerable commotion caused by the agents while investigating the second floor created a reasonable belief that any occupants were alerted to the police presence and might destroy evidence. Therefore, the warrantless entry for the limited purpose of a security check was justified.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and applies the Second Circuit's test for conducting a warrantless 'security check' of a residence following an arrest made outside the premises. The court establishes that a combination of factors, including a suspect's attempts to mislead police and the commotion caused by the police themselves, can create the exigent circumstances needed to justify a warrantless entry. The ruling extends the protective principles of Chimel v. California beyond the arrestee's immediate control but narrowly limits the intrusion to a quick sweep for persons, not a full search. The decision underscores the distinction between the legality of the initial entry and the permissible scope of the subsequent search, as the court upheld the entry while acknowledging the agents improperly remained for 16 hours.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Vasquez (1980)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"