United States v. Wilson
2002 WL 31019362, 306 F.3d 231 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless entry into an arrestee's home may be justified by exigent circumstances, such as the need to conduct a protective sweep based on a reasonable belief of danger from others inside, or the need to retrieve clothing for a partially-clad arrestee to mitigate safety hazards and ensure decency.
Facts:
- Alonzo Jackson and an unidentified armed man allegedly took Doretta Bailey from an apartment.
- During the incident, Jackson allegedly threatened Jessie Johnson with a firearm, leading to an aggravated assault charge and an arrest warrant for Jackson.
- Police located Jackson at his apartment, where Doretta Bailey exited and informed officers that Jackson was inside.
- Jackson then stepped out of his apartment, wearing only boxer shorts, and met the officers five to six feet from the partially open door.
- Officers arrested and handcuffed Jackson on the spot.
- In response to an officer's question, Jackson stated that someone else was inside the apartment.
- An officer entered the apartment without a warrant and found Bryain Wilson lying on the floor, ultimately discovering two pistols in Wilson's pockets.
Procedural Posture:
- Bryain Wilson was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Wilson filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the firearms as evidence, arguing they were obtained through an unconstitutional warrantless search.
- The district court held a suppression hearing and granted Wilson's motion, ruling that no exigent circumstances justified the officers' entry into the apartment.
- The United States (the Government) appealed the district court's suppression order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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:
Do exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry into an arrestee's apartment to conduct a protective sweep for officer safety or to retrieve clothing for the partially-clad arrestee, when the arrest occurs just outside the apartment door?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert M. Parker, Circuit Judge
Yes. Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the apartment for both a protective sweep and to retrieve clothing. The Fourth Amendment permits a protective sweep when officers have a reasonable belief based on specific, articulable facts that an area harbors a dangerous individual. Here, officers knew Jackson was arrested for a violent crime involving a firearm, he had an armed accomplice who was unaccounted for, the firearm from the original crime was missing, and Jackson confirmed someone was inside the nearby, open apartment. These facts created a reasonable belief of danger. Additionally, the need to retrieve clothing for Jackson, who was clad only in boxer shorts on a public sidewalk, constituted an exigency because of the potential safety hazards to the arrestee and basic considerations of decency.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies two key exigent circumstances exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement within the Fifth Circuit. It affirms a broad application of the protective sweep doctrine from Maryland v. Buie, allowing officers to enter a home even when an arrest is made just outside, provided there are specific, articulable facts pointing to a potential danger inside. More significantly, it establishes new precedent in the circuit by holding that retrieving clothing for a partially-clad arrestee can constitute an exigent circumstance, aligning the Fifth Circuit with the Second, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits on this issue and providing law enforcement with greater latitude in such situations.
