Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02165/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tylan Lucas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2165

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District of

* Nebraska.

Tylan Lucas, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2005

Filed: June 16, 2006 

___________

Before ARNOLD, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

Tylan Lucas was tried before a jury and convicted on five counts: possession

with intent to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance containing

cocaine base; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime;

possession of a firearm after a felony conviction; conspiracy to distribute or possess

with intent to distribute fifty to one-hundred-fifty grams of a mixture or substance

containing cocaine base; and obstructing, influencing, or impeding or attempting to

obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. He was found not guilty on two

other counts.

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295
1

We are presented with a situation in which the police used an invalid arrest

warrant to make an arrest in a private residence. Had Lucas been arrested in a public

place, the validity of the warrant may not have been at issue. See United States v.

Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 423-24 (1976) (holding that a public arrest, based on probable

cause that a felony had been committed, did not require a warrant).

-2-

Lucas appeals his conviction on eight separate grounds. Finding that a

"Warrant of Arrest," signed by the Nebraska Director of Correctional Services

(Corrections Director), is not a valid arrest warrant, we reverse and remand.1

I. BACKGROUND

On October 22, 2003, then Corrections Director Harold Clarke issued a

document titled "Warrant of Arrest (for Escaped Prisoner)" for Tylan Lucas, after his

escape from the custody of the Department of Correctional Services. On January 4,

2004, Sergeant Timothy J. Carmody, a member of the Omaha Police Department

fugitive task force, received a telephone call from Crime Stoppers indicating that a

caller had information about Tylan Lucas. Carmody put Deputy Gerald Kellogg of

the Douglas County Sheriff's Department in contact with the caller. Kellogg met with

the caller, and the pair drove past a residence, which the caller reported was Lucas'

location. 

Carmody, Kellogg, and members of the fugitive task force then went to the

residence, and knocked on the front door. Theresa Scaife, whom they believed to be

the tenant, answered the door and told the officers that she had to get dressed. She

returned to the door after a couple of minutes. Scaife initially denied that Lucas was

present and asked the officers if they had a search warrant. The officers told her that

because of the arrest warrant, they would search the residence. Scaife then admitted

that Lucas was inside the residence. Scaife was handcuffed and placed in a police

cruiser.

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295
-3-

Officers announced their presence and directed Lucas to come out of the house.

When he did not, officers entered and found Lucas in the basement, wearing only

boxer shorts. Because the weather was bitterly cold, the officers determined that it

was necessary to dress Lucas. Kellogg located a pair of pants, which Lucas admitted

were his, but asked to wear a different pair. Kellogg had already begun searching the

first pair of pants and found $2900, two bags of crack cocaine, and one bag of

marijuana. Lucas was then dressed and placed in a police cruiser.

Scaife was returned to the residence, and her handcuffs removed. At that point,

officers explained the situation to her and told her that they believed Lucas had

contraband in the residence, including a weapon. Scaife verbally consented to a

search and signed a consent form. Officers then located a large amount of marijuana

and a stolen six-shot revolver.

Prior to trial, Lucas moved to suppress the evidence. The district court denied

the motion, finding that Scaife did not consent to the search, but rather acquiesced to

the execution of an arrest warrant. The district court determined that Clarke was

neutral and detached and had authority to sign an arrest warrant. The district court

also found that the officers properly executed the warrant. Lucas appeals the validity

of the warrant, and we remand.

II. DISCUSSION

Lucas argues that the search was an invalid, nonconsensual search of a

residence. He contends that the warrant was invalid because its issuer was a member

of the executive branch, rather than a detached and neutral magistrate. The United

States counters that Clarke had the authority to sign the warrant and was capable of

determining whether probable cause existed for the requested arrest or search. In the

alternative, the United States argues the good-faith exception applies.

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295
-4-

A. The Arrest Warrant

As the district court correctly determined, the Corrections Director has

statutory authority to "[i]ssue or authorize the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of

any person committed to the department who has escaped from the custody of the

department." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-173(11). However, a statutory grant of authority

is not dispositive, as we must determine whether that grant conforms to the Fourth

Amendment.

In Payton v. New York, the Supreme Court determined that the Fourth

Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, "prohibits the

police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in

order to make a routine felony arrest." 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980). A defendant who

has been illegally arrested does not get a free pass; he must still stand trial. Id. at 592,

n.34. However, evidence found during an unlawful arrest might be subject to the

exclusionary rule and might not be admissible at trial. Id. at 591-92. Lucas argues

that the arrest warrant was invalid, that the arrest in a private residence was unlawful,

and that the evidence found during the arrest was not admissible. Thus, we must

determine whether the warrant for Lucas' arrest was valid.

A warrant may be issued only by an official who is "neutral and detached" and

"capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or

search." Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 350 (1972). Lucas does not

dispute the ability of Clarke to determine probable cause, only whether he is neutral

and detached.

The Supreme Court has examined the roles of government officials who have

issued warrants to determine whether the warrants were valid. At one end of the

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295
-5-

spectrum, a state attorney general, who was in charge of a criminal investigation and

served as chief trial prosecutor, could not issue a valid warrant because he was not

neutral and detached. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 449-50 (1971),

overruled in part on other grounds by Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990). At

the other end of the spectrum, city court clerks, who had "no connection with any law

enforcement activity or authority," and were assigned to and supervised by municipal

court judges, were sufficiently neutral and detached to issue arrest warrants, despite

having been appointed by the city clerk. Shadwick, 407 U.S. at 350-51. We note that

the official issuing the warrant need not actually be a judge or attorney. Id. at 352.

Though in Shadwick the Court expressly did not "determine whether a State may

lodge warrant authority in someone entirely outside the sphere of the judicial

branch.," id., the Court has warned against vesting the power to issue warrants in

members of the federal executive branch, whose job is to enforce laws, investigate,

and prosecute. United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297, 317 (1972).

This court has examined the need for a neutral and detached magistrate in

contexts involving United States Magistrate Judges. See, e.g., United States v.

Mathison, 157 F.3d 541, 548 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding defendant failed to show

magistrate judge was not impartial). We have also concluded that a local municipal

judge (also known as a "police magistrate") had the authority to issue a search

warrant under North Dakota law. Gallagher v. United States, 406 F.2d 102, 104, 108

(8th Cir. 1969). However, Gallagher was decided prior to Shadwick and thus did not

discuss whether the official was neutral and detached.

The Sixth Circuit invalidated two search warrants signed by a trial

commissioner who was also an employee at the Ohio County Detention Center.

United States v. Parker, 373 F.3d 770, 771-72, 774 (6th Cir. 2004). The

commissioner had been hired by, was supervised by, and could be fired by the jailer,

and she was responsible for securing the financial stability of the jail. Id. at 773. The

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295
-6-

commissioner "was not sufficiently disengaged from activities of law enforcement,"

and therefore could not serve as a neutral and detached magistrate. Id. at 774.

Based on the persuasive reasoning of our sister circuit, we find that the

Corrections Director, a member of the executive branch, is not sufficiently neutral

and detached to serve as a magistrate. Though confirmed by the legislature, the

Governor of Nebraska appoints the Corrections Director, establishes his salary and

may determine that his services are no longer needed. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 81-102, 81-

103, and 81-107. The Corrections Director supervises and is responsible for the

administration of the Department of Corrections, appoints the chief executive officer

of each facility, and provides training programs for department employees. Neb. Rev.

Stat. § 83-173. Because the Corrections Director is a member of the executive branch

and accountable directly to the Governor, he is not a neutral and detached magistrate

for purposes of issuing arrest warrants. Therefore, the "Warrant of Arrest" signed by

the Corrections Director was not a valid arrest warrant.

B. Good-Faith Exception

In the alternative, the United States argues that the good-faith exception to the

warrant requirement should apply. The good-faith exception allows evidence "seized

by officers reasonably relying on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral

magistrate" to be admitted, even if the warrant is later found to be defective. United

States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984). The good-faith exception was fashioned

because the exclusionary rule is designed to deter only law enforcement officers, not

magistrates and judges. Id. at 918. However, the good-faith exception does not apply

when the individual who issued the warrant is not neutral and detached. Id. at 914.

Because the Corrections Director is not a neutral and detached magistrate, the goodfaith exception necessarily cannot apply.

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295
-7-

III. CONCLUSION

The Director of the Nebraska Department of Corrections, is not a neutral and

detached magistrate. The "Warrant of Arrest" is not a valid arrest warrant and the

good-faith exception to the warrant requirement does not apply. Accordingly, we

reverse and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2165 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/16/2006 Entry ID: 2057295