United States v. Xavier Exum
657 F. App'x 153 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest warrant allows law enforcement to enter a suspect's dwelling if the totality of the circumstances provides a reasonable belief that the suspect is present within. Once lawfully inside, officers may seize contraband or evidence of a crime under the plain-view doctrine if its incriminating character is immediately apparent.
Facts:
- Xavier Stanley Exum was wanted for a parole violation, and law enforcement possessed a warrant for his arrest.
- Officers went to an apartment where they believed Exum was staying.
- An officer located Exum's vehicle parked near the apartment building.
- The apartment manager informed an officer that Exum was typically at the apartment during the day and that if his car was there, he would be there.
- An officer observed someone peeking through the apartment's blinds.
- Upon entering the apartment to execute the warrant, officers located and arrested Exum.
- While inside, officers saw firearms under an air mattress and behind a door.
- Exum was a convicted felon, making his possession of these firearms illegal.
Procedural Posture:
- Xavier Stanley Exum was prosecuted by the United States in federal district court (the trial court).
- Exum filed pre-trial motions to suppress evidence from the apartment search, his post-arrest statements, and cell-site location information.
- The district court denied all of Exum's motions to suppress.
- Following a trial, a jury found Exum guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The district court imposed a 78-month sentence, which included an enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with drug trafficking.
- Exum, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did law enforcement have a sufficient 'reason to believe' a suspect was within a dwelling to justify entry under an arrest warrant, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, based on the suspect's car being parked outside, a tip from an apartment manager, and an observation of movement inside?
Opinions:
Per Curiam - Court
Yes. The officers' entry into the apartment did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the totality of the circumstances provided a reasonable belief that Exum was present. The court found that this 'reason to believe' standard was met by the combination of three key facts: 1) Exum's car was parked nearby; 2) the apartment manager stated that Exum would be there if his car was present; and 3) an officer observed someone peeking through the blinds. Citing Payton v. New York, the court affirmed that an arrest warrant carries the limited authority to enter a suspect's residence when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. Furthermore, the seizure of the firearms was justified under the plain-view doctrine because the officers were lawfully present in the apartment, had a lawful right of access to the firearms, and their incriminating nature was immediately apparent due to Exum's status as a convicted felon.
Analysis:
This unpublished opinion illustrates the Fourth Circuit's application of the 'reason to believe' standard from Payton v. New York for entering a home with an arrest warrant. It reinforces that courts use a pragmatic, 'totality-of-the-circumstances' approach rather than a rigid formula. The decision demonstrates that a combination of circumstantial evidence—a vehicle's presence, a third-party tip, and direct observation of activity—is sufficient to meet the constitutional threshold for entry. While not binding precedent, this case provides a clear example of the factual basis courts may find adequate to justify such an entry, offering guidance on the practical application of established Fourth Amendment principles.
