Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01758/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duane D. Hill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable John

T. Maughmer, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of

Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1758

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Duane D. Hill, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 13, 2005

Filed: December 8, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

LAY, Circuit Judge.

Duane D. Hill entered a conditional plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), after the district court1

denied his motion to suppress firearms seized from his home. Hill appeals the denial

of his motion to dismiss. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1758 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983502
-2-

I.

On the morning of March 19, 2004, a task force of Kansas City Police

Department officers and FBI agents conducted surveillance on the home of Duane D.

Hill in order to execute an arrest warrant for Hill on charges of aggravated robbery.

At approximately 7:00 a.m., the officers observed Hill exit his residence and place

trash on the curb. The officers then arrested Hill as he was opening the door to the

screened-in porch of his home. 

While other officers arrested Hill, Detective Jeffrey Wishard of the Kansas City,

Missouri Police Department observed a woman, later identified as Hill’s wife, and

another man standing in the entryway of the residence. Detective Wishard watched

the man look outside the house at the law enforcement officers and then run back into

Hill’s residence. Detective Wishard pulled open the door to the entryway where Hill’s

wife was standing and asked her who else was in the house. She replied that no one

else was there, which Detective Wishard knew to be untrue. Detective Wishard drew

his gun and quickly entered the house. He found the unidentified man flushing the

toilet in the bathroom. Detective Wishard removed the man from the bathroom and

placed him in the hallway.

From his position in the hallway, Detective Wishard could see a shotgun

leaning against a wall at the bottom of a stairway. Other officers entered to conduct

a protective sweep to make sure no one else was in the home. Detective Wishard

located a handgun in plain view on the nightstand in the same downstairs room as the

shotgun. Other officers found an AK-47 assault rifle with 30 rounds of ammunition

leaning against a closet wall in plain view in the upstairs bedroom. 

After being indicted by a grand jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm,

Hill filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence against him was obtained in

violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of his

Appellate Case: 05-1758 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983502
-3-

home. The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and issued a report and

recommendation holding that the search of Hill’s home was justified by exigent

circumstances. The district court adopted this report and recommendation and Hill

entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion

to suppress. Hill now appeals, arguing that his house was entered, and the firearms

seized, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. We hold that the entry into

Hill’s home was justified by exigent circumstances, and therefore affirm. 

II.

The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

U.S. Const. amend. IV. As explained by the Supreme Court, “the Fourth Amendment

has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that

threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” Payton v. New York, 445

U.S. 573, 590 (1980). However, a “legitimate concern for the safety” of law

enforcement officers or other individuals constitutes exigent circumstances that justify

warrantless entry. United States v. Vance, 53 F.3d 220, 222 (8th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Antwine, 873 F.2d 1144, 1147 (8th Cir. 1989). “When there is a reasonable

fear of harm, a warrantless entry may be justified.” United States v. Williams, 633

F.2d 742, 744 (8th Cir. 1980). 

We believe that Detective Wishard had a legitimate and reasonable concern for

the safety of Hill and the officers present, and therefore exigent circumstances

justified the entry of Hill’s home. Detective Wishard testified that he would not have

entered the house had he not seen the unidentified man running back inside the

residence. He further testified that, in light of the aggravated robbery charges, he

assumed there may have been weapons in the residence and was concerned that the

unidentified man could have been going for a weapon. Detective Wishard testified

Appellate Case: 05-1758 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983502
-4-

that the sole reason for entering the residence was to ensure officer safety and the

safety of Mr. Hill.

When evaluating the reasonableness of Detective Wishard’s concerns, we agree

with the district court that United States v. Vance, supra, is instructive. In Vance, a

combined group of local law enforcement officers and FBI agents arrested the

defendant on four outstanding warrants. During the defendant’s arrest outside the

back door of the residence, another man appeared at the open door wearing only his

underwear. When an officer asked the man for identification, the man replied that it

was inside and then began to retreat into the residence. The officer stated that he was

coming in as well. Once inside, the officer asked the unidentified man for the

defendant’s guns and the man directed the officer to their location.

The defendant was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm and challenged

the warrantless entry of his residence. The court found that the warrantless entry was

justified on safety grounds. Vance, 53 F.3d at 222. The officer’s safety concerns were

reasonable because he had been briefed beforehand that there were other individuals

and weapons in the house, and he could have reasonably feared that the unidentified

man was entering the house to obtain a weapon. Id.

Hill argues that Vance is distinguishable due to the pre-arrest briefing that

informed officers of the exigency in that case. We find this argument to be

unpersuasive. The unexpected nature of the exigency in this case does not make the

safety concerns any less compelling. Unexpected and dangerous events that arise

during an arrest can create exigent circumstances that justify law enforcement officers

entering a residence in order to protect themselves from any additional and unknown

threats. See United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding

that officers’ concerns for their safety justified the warrantless entry of a residence

after a man resisted arrest outside the residence, a woman ran down the driveway

Appellate Case: 05-1758 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983502
-5-

screaming at officers, another woman stood in the doorway of the residence, and the

officers knew there might be a drug lab in the residence). 

While the law enforcement officers in Vance had advance notice that the

defendant’s arrest could be dangerous, the unknown man was compliant and spoke

with the police. In this case, the unidentified man was not under an officer’s control

and ran back into the house after seeing the police. Moreover, when questioned by

Detective Wishard, Mr. Hill’s wife denied the unidentified man’s presence. These

facts, in addition to the violent crime for which Hill was being arrested and the likely

presence of weapons, all contributed to Detective Wishard’s reasonable concerns for

the safety of Hill and the officers present.

Therefore, we hold that Detective Wishard’s warrantless entry into Hill’s home

was justified due to exigent circumstances. Once inside, the officers could lawfully

seize the firearms located in plain view inside the residence. Coolidge v. New

Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465 (1971). 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1758 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/08/2005 Entry ID: 1983502