Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02339/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony James Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Paul A. Zoss, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of

Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-2339

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Anthony James Smith,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Northern District of Iowa.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: February 19, 2004

 Filed: April 13, 2004

________________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

After the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress evidence, a jury found

Anthony James Smith guilty of attempting to manufacture five grams or more of

actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 (2000), and being

a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). He

Appellate Case: 03-2339 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2004 Entry ID: 1756419
2

was sentenced to 324 months on the drug offense and a concurrent 120 months on the

firearm offense. On appeal, Smith challenges the district court's denial of his

suppression motion. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. 

I. 

On the morning of June 6, 2002, Officer Dan Wellen and Officer Logan Wernet

of the Mason City, Iowa Police Department responded to a citizen's report of a strong

chemical odor coming from Smith's apartment, where he lived with his girlfriend,

Dawn Hartkopp, and their child. There was an outstanding arrest warrant for Smith

for contempt of court for failure to appear for a hearing. Officer Wellen had been to

Smith's apartment twice in the previous two months on state court-ordered child

welfare checks, both visits also occurring in the morning. On each visit, Smith was

present in the apartment but he did not immediately answer the door even after

repeated knocking. 

Upon arriving at the apartment, Officer Wernet detected an odor he associated

with methamphetamine manufacturing. The officers knocked several times on one of

the five doors leading into the apartment but did not receive a response, though they

heard a baby crying inside. Four of the doors had windows composed of frosted panes

of glass, and the fifth door had a nonfrosted window partially covered on the inside

by a towel. While the officers were knocking on the doors, they observed that

someone inside the apartment had moved the towel, further obstructing the view into

the apartment. Painted transom windows were above each of the five doors. The

officers attempted to boost up one another in order to see through a small spot in the

transom window where the paint had been chipped away, but they were unsuccessful.

They then obtained a stepladder which they used to look through the spot. Officer

Wellen saw Smith crouching behind the door and recognized him from Smith's

Appellate Case: 03-2339 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2004 Entry ID: 1756419
3

distinctive tattoo the officer had observed on a previous visit. The officers then called

the courthouse to confirm that the warrant for Smith was valid.

They then contacted the landlord, who confirmed that Smith lived in the

apartment. The landlord arrived and attempted to unlock the door with his keys but

was unsuccessful. A locksmith was summoned to unlock the door; however, the

officers only opened the door an inch before it was shut by someone inside. As they

did so, they heard someone say, "They are opening it," from within the apartment.

The officers were then able to open the door and were met by Hartkopp. Officer

Wernet stayed with Hartkopp while Officer Wellen found Smith in the bathroom and

arrested him. Items consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine were on

a table in the kitchen where Hartkopp was being held. She gave the officers

permission to search the apartment for other individuals. In the bedroom, the officers

found precursors for methamphetamine manufacture in plain view. The officers later

obtained a search warrant to search the entire apartment and seized the items related

to the manufacture of methamphetamine.

After Smith was indicted by a federal grand jury, he filed a motion to suppress.

He argued that the officers' use of a ladder to see into his apartment through the

unpainted spot in the transom window above his door constituted an illegal search,

and that the resulting evidence was its illegal fruit and should be suppressed. The

district court denied Smith's motion on two grounds. First, the court found that the

police were justified in entering the apartment on the basis of the arrest warrant

because they had a reasonable belief that Smith lived at the apartment and was

present at the time. Second, the court found that Smith had no subjective expectation

of privacy in the areas visible through the glass in the doors and transoms, and that

the officers did not violate Smith's Fourth Amendment rights. 

Smith was convicted and sentenced, and he now appeals. 

Appellate Case: 03-2339 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/13/2004 Entry ID: 1756419
4

II.

In reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we examine its

factual findings for clear error and review de novo whether the Fourth Amendment

has been violated. United States v. Neumann, 183 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 528 U.S. 981 (1999). We conclude that the officers' entry into the apartment

based upon the arrest warrant was justified as they had a reasonable belief that Smith

resided in the apartment and that he was present at the time they entered, apart from

any observations they made of him through the unpainted spot on the transom

window.

We have recognized that "[a] valid arrest warrant carries with it the authority

to enter the residence of the person named in the warrant in order to execute the

warrant so long as the police have a reasonable belief that the suspect resides at the

place to be entered and that he is currently present in the dwelling." United States v.

Clayton, 210 F.3d 841, 843 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,

603 (1980)). This applies with equal force to misdemeanor warrants. Id. Whether an

officer's belief is reasonable is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v.

Risse, 83 F.3d 212, 215 (8th Cir. 1996).

Substantial evidence exists to support the officers' belief that the apartment in

question was Smith's residence. Officer Wellen had been there on two previous

occasions to meet with Smith. The landlord also confirmed that Smith lived there.

We have found an officer's belief that a suspect lived at a dwelling to be reasonable

on weaker evidence than this. See, e.g., United States v. Junkman, 160 F.3d 1191,

1193-94 (8th Cir. 1998) (hotel clerk's misidentification of man she believed to be

staying in room gave police reasonable belief to enter hotel room on arrest warrant),

cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1094 (1999); Risse, 83 F.3d at 216-17 (girlfriend's previous

assertion to police that she was "staying with" defendant, along with informant's

statement that girlfriend lived with defendant, were sufficient to justify entry into

Appellate Case: 03-2339 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/13/2004 Entry ID: 1756419
5

defendant's home based on arrest warrant for girlfriend, even though girlfriend

maintained another residence elsewhere). We easily conclude that the officers' belief

that the apartment they were entering was Smith's was reasonable.

It is not enough, however, for the police to know that a suspect is a resident of

a dwelling; the police must also have a reason to believe that the suspect is present

at the time of entry. We have found an officer's belief that a suspect was at home

reasonable when based on tips from citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Boyd, 180

F.3d 967, 978 (8th Cir. 1999) (officer reasonably believed that suspect was home

based on confidential informant's assertion, corroborated by police observation of a

car appearing to be defendant's and observing that hood of defendant's girlfriend's

car was warm, that defendant had arrived there). Other circuits have found an officer's

belief that a suspect was home reasonable when based on knowledge of the usual

behavior of the suspect. See United States v. Lauter, 57 F.3d 212, 215 (2d

 Cir. 1995)

(officers reasonably believed that suspect was home in the morning because reliable

confidential informant said suspect usually slept late and was unemployed).

The officers believed that an adult was inside the apartment based on the

movement of the towel in the window, and they could reasonably believe that a

crying baby would not be alone in the apartment. They knew that Smith had been in

the apartment during the morning hours on two previous occasions. They also knew

that Smith usually did not answer the door after repeated knocking. Viewing the

totality of the circumstances the officers faced, we conclude they had a reasonable

belief that Smith was present inside the apartment and were thus justified in entering

the apartment as they did to execute the arrest warrant. Once lawfully inside the

apartment, the officers observed the incriminating evidence in plain view. Those

observations provided the probable cause for the search warrant which was later

executed to seize the items.

Appellate Case: 03-2339 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/13/2004 Entry ID: 1756419
6

III.

Having concluded that the officers' entrance into Smith's apartment was

justified on the basis of the arrest warrant, we have no need to reach the question of

whether looking through the transom amounted to an illegal search. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2339 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/13/2004 Entry ID: 1756419