4-15-80
This is an old case, but it's an important one... I've known a lot of cops who don't really understand the principles spelled out in this one.
Anyway, this decision actually involves two separate cases that revolve around the same issue. Early on, it states that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest (that one sentence speaks volumes). The facts of each of the two cases are laid out. In one, the police made a warrantless forced entry into Payton's residence to arrest him for murder. He wasn't present, but a gun was found and seized (he was later arrested elsewhere). In the other, police went to Riddick's house to arrest him (without a warrant) for robbery. Riddick's child answered the door, the officers saw Riddick in the house, and then they entered the house and arrested him without giving him a chance to consent or object to their entry. Drugs were found in the house, and he was charged with possession. In each case, there was probable cause for the arrest but no warrant. In each case, the warrantless entry was made at the suspect's own residence. Both defendants moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless entry into their respective homes.
After that, the decision explores the origins of the Fourth Amendment, and English Common Law. Read at your own risk, but it's interesting if you like history.
The last part is as important as the first. Particularly the passage "If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen's participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within."
While I was reading the decision, I kept wondering why it referred specifically to felony arrests. Then I remembered that not every state authorizes warrantless misdemeanor arrests the way Colorado does... New Mexico, at least, requires a warrant for most misdemeanor arrests (unless there is a specific statutory exception).
After that, the decision explores the origins of the Fourth Amendment, and English Common Law. Read at your own risk, but it's interesting if you like history.
The last part is as important as the first. Particularly the passage "If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen's participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within."
While I was reading the decision, I kept wondering why it referred specifically to felony arrests. Then I remembered that not every state authorizes warrantless misdemeanor arrests the way Colorado does... New Mexico, at least, requires a warrant for most misdemeanor arrests (unless there is a specific statutory exception).
You're right, lots if not most cops don't get it... It'd be interesting to see you're take on the cases that designate a threshold as a public place :)
ReplyDeleteShould I find a binding one, you'll be the first to know!
DeleteA lot of cops don't get it, but the ones who really scare me are the ones who make up their own rules about what you can and can't do at someone's house while ignoring the rules that the courts have made. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about.