2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-28-2010 

# U SA v . B utle r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2100

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B utle r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 31. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/31T h e H o n o ra b le A . W a llac e T a sh im a , U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e N in th * C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 05- 2100

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. F RANKLI N BUTLE R, A p p e llan t.

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 02- cr - 00300- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. B ruce W . K auff m an A r gued M ay23, 2007 B efore: C H A G A R E S , H A R D IM A N , and T A S H IM A , C i rcui tJudg es. *

____________ ( Fi l ed: D ece m ber28, 2010) G ui l l erm o L . B os ch, E s q. ( A r gued) 12 O xfor d L ane N ew O xfor d, PA 17350- 1614 C ouns el forA ppel l ant2

J os e R . A r t eaga ( A r gued) A ss ista n t U n ited S tate s A tto rn e y , E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia 615 C hes t nutSt r eet Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forA ppel l ee OP I NI ON C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Fr ankl i n B ut l erw as t r i ed and c onvi ct ed of va r i ous drug- r el at ed off ens es ar i s i ng o u t o f a w a rr a n tle s s p o lic e s e a rc h o f a n A lle n to w n , P e n n s y lv a n ia a p a rt m e n t. O n a p p e a l, B ut l ercont ends t hatt hi s s ear ch, w hi ch l ed t o hi s arr es tand t o t he di s coveryof s i gni fi cant amount s of i ncul pat or yevi dence , vi ol at ed hi s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s . T he di s pos i t i ve i s s ue i s w hethert he pol i ce c r eat ed the exi gentci r cumst ance s on w hi ch theyr el i ed for exec ut i ng t he w arr ant l es s s ear ch B ut l ernow chal l enges . W e hol d t hattheydi d not , and w i l l aff i r m B ut l er ’ s convi ct i on. I . T he fa ct s per t i nentt o t hi s appea l ar e l ar gel yundi s put ed and maybe s t at ed s ucci nct l y . A ft err ece i vi ng a r epor tthatdrug tr aff i cki ng act i vi t yw as t aki ng pl ace atan apart m entbui l di ng l ocat ed at941 H ami l t on St r eeti n A l l ent ow n, Penns y l vani a, u n d e rc o v e r A llen to w n P o lice O f f ice rs C h risto p h e r C ru z , M ich a e l F a u lk n e r, an d P e te M cA fee w entt o t hataddr es s . A ppendi x ( A pp. ) 396. O nce on l ocat i on, O ffi cerC ruzB u tle r, f o r h is p a rt , m a in ta in s th a t h e n e v e r p o in te d a n yf ir e a rm a t O f

f ic e r C ru z . 1 Fort he r eas ons s t at ed i nfr a , w e re je c t th is a rg u m e n t.

3 s poke w i t h t he compl ai nant , w ho i dent i fi ed A par t m ent#304 as the l i kel yl ocus of the drug deal i ng. A pp. 401. She al s o caut i oned thatone of the occ upant s w as arm ed and o f t e n k e p ta h a n d g u n i n h i s wa i s tb a n d . Cru z th e n c a l l e d f o rb a c k u p , a n d Al l e n t o wn P o li ce O ff

icers W il li am R einik , M icha el M an cini, an d K y le H o u g h resp o n d ed to C ruz ’s r eques t . A pp. 403. T he off i cer s pl ace d A par tm ent#304 unders ur vei l l ance for appr oxi m at el yfi ft een mi nut es , butt hei reff or t s pr oved frui t l es s , as theydi d notobs erve a n y o n e e n te ri n g o r d e p a rt in g th e a p a rt m e n t. T h e o f f ice rs n e x t d e c id e d to e m p lo yth e so -c a lled “ k n o c k a n d talk ” tec h n iq u e to i nves t i gat e furt her . T he off i cer s s pl i ti nt o t w o gr oups . T he fi r s tgr oup, w hi ch cons i s t ed o f O f f ic e rs C ru z , R e in ik , a n d M a n c in i, p ro c e e d e d to th e f ro n t d o o r o f

A p a rt m e n t # 3 0 4 . T he r emai ni ng offi cer s cover ed a s epar at e doorw hi ch l ed t o a di ffe r entpartof the apart m ent . A pp. 405- 06. O ffi cer s R ei ni k and M anci ni fl anked e i t hers i de of the fr ont d o o r, w h ile O f

f ic e r C ru z p o s itio n e d h im s e lf d ir e c tly in f

ro n t o f th e f ro n t d o o r. O ffi cerC ruz knocke d on t he fr ontdoor . W hen a voi ce f r om i ns i de as ked w ho w as t her e, O ffi cerC ruz r es ponded, “C hr i s . ” A pp. 406- 07. A m an l at eri dent i fi ed as B ut l er opened the doors l i ght l y , hol di ng a pi s t ol athi p l evel i n hi s l efthand, ai m ed atO ffi cer C ruz. Seei ng t he handgun poi nt ed athi m , O ffi cerC ruz y el l ed, “G o, go, go, gun, ” and

1 d ir ec ted O ff

icer M an cini to en ter th e a p artm en t. A p p . 2 5 4 , 4 0 9 -10 . T h e thre e o ff icers s im u lta n e o u s ly id e n tif

ie d th e m s e lv e s a s p o lic e , a n d B u tle r a tte m p te d to s la m th e d o o r.4

A pp. 253- 54. O ffi cerR ei ni k s tuck hi s footi n t he doorw ay , pr event i ng B ut l erfr om s l amm i ng t he door . I d. B ut l erfl ed i nt o t he apa r t m ent , and O ffi cerC ruz i ns t ruct ed O ffi cerM anci ni and the otheroffi cer s t o ent erthe apa r t m ent . T he off i cer s pur s ued B ut l er i nt o a bedr oom , w her e theyfound hi m l y i ng undera bl anketon a makes hi ftm at t r es s on t he fl oor . A pp. 412. B ut l er ’ s co- defe ndant , B i l l M urr ay , w as al s o i n t he bedr oom . Pol i ce found M ur r ayus i ng a r azort o cuta l ar ge w hi t e r ock thatw as l at erdet erm i ned t o be cr ack c o c a in e . A p p . 4 1 2 , 4 2 1 , 6 1 7 . F iv e c ra c k p ip e s w e re p re s e n t o n th e ta b le n e x t to M u rr a y . A pp. 639. Pol i ce s ecur ed both m en and s ear ched the r oom forw eapons . W hen B ut l er fai l ed t o r es pond t o t he off i cer s ’ i nqui r i es aboutw her e the gun he ha d poi nt ed atC ruz w as l ocat ed, O ffi cerH ough pi cked up the bl anketthathad bee n cover i ng B ut l er , and a lo a d e d n in e -m illim e te r p is to l f e ll to th e f

lo o r. A p p . 4 1 3 -1 5 . A s ear ch of But l erl ed t o t he di s coveryof $672 i n cas h, and thi r t y - s even z i pl oc bags , eac h cont ai ni ng cr ack c ocai ne. M urr ayand B ut l erboth w ai ved thei rM i r anda r i ght s , and M ur r ay( t he l es s ee) cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of the apa r t m ent , w hi ch turned up fur t herdrug- r el at ed par aphernal i a, i ncl udi ng I nos i t ol , comm onl yus ed as a cutt i ng agent forcoca i ne, and numer ous unus ed pl as t i c baggi es . A pp. 416- 22. B ut l eral s o t ol d t he p o lice th a t h e p o ss e ss e d th e g u n to p ro tec t h is p ro d u c t, an d th a t h e m a d e a p p ro x im a tely $5, 000 i n a good w eek s el l i ng drugs fr om A par t m ent#304. A pp. 420. T her eaf t er , B ut l erw as char ged w i t h cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e cr ack c ocai ne and pos s es s i on of cr ack c ocai ne w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846 and §B u tler’ s c o -d e f e n d a n t at tria l, M u rra y , is n o t a p a rtyto th is a p p e a l. 2 5 841, and w i t h carr y i ng a fi r earm i n connec t i on w i t h a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . B ut l erm oved t o s uppr es s the evi dence the governm entobt ai ned fr om t he s ear ch ati s s ue. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B ut l er ’ s m ot i on, and a j uryl at er c o n v icte d h im o n a ll th re e c o u n ts. B u tler n o w a p p e a ls. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. A . A tt he out s et , w e mustaddr es s the governm ent ’ s cont ent i on thatB ut l erl acks st and i ng t o ch al l eng e t he search of A part m ent #304 . T he g ov ernm ent ar gu es that because B ut l erw as m er el ya t empora r ygues tatA par t m ent#304, he l acks s t andi ng t o cont es tt he le g a lity o f

th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s s e a rc h . T he s hor tans w ert o t hi s i s t hatthe governm enthas w ai ved i t s r i ghtt o chal l enge B u tler’ s s tan d in g . B yits o w n a d m iss io n , the g o v e rn m e n t f a iled to ra ise th is a rg u m e n t to t he D i s t r i ctC our t , and w e ther efor e w i l l notcons i deri ther e. U nl i ke A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng, w hi ch ca nnotbe w ai ved, Four t h A m endments t andi ng can be w ai ved i f notr ai s ed and pr oper l ypr es erved. See R akas v. I l l i noi s , 439 U . S. 128, 140 ( 1978) ( “[T] hi s C our t ’ s l ong hi s t or yof i ns i s t ence t hatFour t h A m endmentr i ght s ar e per s onal i n natur e has al r eady ans w er ed manyof thes e tr adi t i onal s t andi ng i nqui r i es , and w e thi nk thatdefi ni t i on of t hos e r i ght s i s m or e pr oper l ypl ace d w i t hi n t he purvi ew of s ubs t ant i ve Four t h A m endment6

l aw t han w i t hi n t hatof s t andi ng. ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. W as hi ngt on, 380 F. 3d 236, 240 n. 3 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) ( “‘ St andi ng t o chal l enge a s ear ch ors ei zur e i s a mat t erof s ubs t ant i ve Four t h A m endmentl aw r atherthan of A r t i cl e I I I j ur i s di ct i on, m eani ng that t he governm entcan w ai ve the s t andi ng defe ns e bynotas s ert i ng i t . ’ ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed S tate s v . H u g g in s, 2 9 9 F .3 d 1 0 3 9 , 1 0 5 0 n .1 5 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ))); U n ited S tate s v . D e w itt , 946 F. 2d 1497, 1499- 1500 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) ( “[T] he i s s ue of [ F] our t h [A ] m endment s t andi ng coul d be w ai ved i f the governm enthas fai l ed t o r ai s e i ti n a t i m el yfas hi on dur i ng t he l i t i gat i on. ” ( quot at i on m arks and al t er at i ons om i t t ed) ) . A ccor di ngl y , our a n a lysis p ro p e rl yp ro c e e d s to th e m e ri ts o f B u tle r’ s c h a lle n g e . B . W e b e g in o u r a n a ly sis w ith th e p e rtin e n t co n stitu tio n a l tex t. T h e F o u rth A m end m ent t o the U nit ed S t at es C on st i tuti on st at es: T he r i ghtof the peopl e t o be s ecur e i n t hei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and eff ect s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l notbe vi ol at ed, and no W arr ant s s hal l i s s ue, butupon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed byO ath or aff i r m at i on, and part i cul ar l ydes cr i bi ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched, and the per s ons ort hi ngs t o be s ei zed. U. S . Co n s t . a me n d . I V. T hi s pr ovi s i on l i m i t s governm entact i on i n t w o r el at ed w ay s . Fi r s t , i tr equi r es t hat th e g o v e rn m e n t co n d u c t o n lyre a so n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d se izu re s. S e c o n d , itse ts o u t (a lb e it a t a h ig h lev e l o f

g e n e ra lity ) th e p re re q u isites th a t g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls m u st c o m p lete b e f o r e e x e c u t i n g a s e a r c h o rs e i z u r e , wh i c h i n c l u d e o b t a i n i n g a wa r r a n t . “ Th e S u p r e me7

C o u rt h a s re a d th e A m e n d m e n t’s tw in c o m m a n d s in tan d e m , h o ld in g th a t w h e n p e o p le have a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of pr i vacyi n t hei rper s ons oreff ect s , al l s ear ches and s ei zur es m us tbe s uppor t ed bya w arr ant , unl es s theyfal l i nt o one of the exc ept i ons t o that r equi r ement . ” U ni t ed St at es v. H ar tw el l , 436 F. 3d 174, 177 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng M i nnes ot a v. D i cker s on, 508 U . S. 366, 372 ( 1993) ( “Ti m e and a gai n, thi s C our thas obs erved thats ear ches and s ei zur es conduct ed out s i de the j udi ci al pr oces s , w i t houtpr i or appr oval byj udge orm agi s t r at e, ar e per se u n rea so n ab le un d er the F o u rth A m en d m en t - - s ubj ectonl yt o a fe w s peci fi cal l yes t abl i s hed and w el l del i neat ed exc ept i ons . ”) ( quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted)). O ne s uch exc ept i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ementi s w hen exi gentci r cumst ance s exi s t . See St eaga l d v. U ni t ed St at es , 451 U . S. 204, 211- 12 ( 1981) ; C ouden v. D uffy , 446 F. 3d 483, 496 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( obs ervi ng thatexi gentci r cumst ance s i s an “e s t abl i s hed exce pt i on[] ” t o t he w arr antr equi r ement ) . E xampl es of exi gentci r cumst ance s i ncl ude, but ar e notl i m i t ed t o, t he i m m i nentl os s ordes t ruct i on of evi dence , hotpur s ui tof a f l eei ng fel on, and the r i s k of dange rt o pol i ce of fi cer s orot her s . See U ni t ed St at es v. C ol es , 437 F . 3 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); E stat e o f S m ith v . M ara sco , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 1 8 (3d C ir . 2001) ( “I ti s es t abl i s hed thatt her e ar e exi gentci r cumst ance s i f the s afe t yof ei t herl aw enfor cementort he gene r al publ i c i s thr eat ened . . . . I nas m uch as the off i cer s had r eas on t o bel i eve thata l as er - s i ght ed w eapon w as bei ng poi nt ed atthem, theyhad r eas on t o fea r fort hei row n s afe t y . C ons equent l y , ther e w er e exi gentci r cumst ance s . . . . ”) ; C ouden,8

4 4 6 F .3 d a t 4 9 6 (p o lic e o f f ic e rs re a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d a p e rs o n w a s in im m in e n t d a n g e r) . W arr antl ess s earches ar e perm i t t ed in such “li m i t ed si tuati on s, ” w e hav e held, becau se “the nee d foreff

ect i ve l aw enfor cementtrum ps the r i ghtof pr i vacyand the r equi r ement of a search w arr ant, t herebyexcu si ng an o t herw i se unco nst i tuti on al i ntrusi on . ” C oles , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 6 6 . A tt he s ame t i m e, how ever , pol i ce c annotavai l themsel ves of the exi gent ci r cumst ance s exce pt i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ementi f they del i ber at el ycr eat e the exi gent c irc u m sta n c e s. S e e id . (“E x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s, h o w e v e r, d o n o t m e e t F o u rth A m endments t andar ds i f the governm entdel i ber at el ycr eat es them. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A cos t a, 965 F. 2d 1248, 1254 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( s ame) . I n as s es s i ng w hetherthe pol i ce i m perm i s s i bl ycr eat e exi gentci r cumst ance s , w e foc us on “the r eas onabl enes s and propri et yof the off

i cers ’ act i on s and invest i gati ve tact i cs l eading u p to the w arr antl ess entr y . ” C ol es , 437 F. 3d at370. N o t ev e ryin ter a c tio n p o lice in iti a te w ith c iti z e n s im p lica tes th e F o u rth A m endment . Fori ns t ance , t he Four t h A m endmentdoes notpr os cr i be pol i ce f r om s eeki ng ci t i zens ’ vol unt aryas s i s t ance i n di s cover i ng ori nves t i gat i ng cr i m e. See Fl or i da v . B o stic k , 5 0 1 U .S . 4 2 9 , 4 3 9 (1 9 9 1 ) (“ T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro sc rib e s u n re a so n a b le s ear ches and s ei zur es ; i tdoes notpr os cr i be vol unt arycooper at i on. ”) ; s ee a l s o M ar as co, 31 8 F . 3d at51 9 (“O ffi cers are al l ow ed to kno ck o n a resi den ce’s do or or otherw i se appr oach the r es i dence s eeki ng t o s peak t o t he i nhabi t ant s j us tas anypr i vat e ci t i zen9

m a y .”). N o r m u st p o lice n e c e ss a rilyid e n tifyth e m se lv e s a s p o lice w h e n th e yin v e stig a te c rim in a l ac tiv ity . If

th e yd id , v irtu a llya ll u n d e rc o v e r w o rk w o u ld ru n a f o u l o f th e F o u rth A m endment . See Lew i s v. U ni t ed St at es , 385 U . S. 206, 210 ( 1966) ( “[P] et i t i oneri nvi t ed t he under coveragentt o hi s hom e forthe s peci fi c purpos e of e xecut i ng a fe l oni ous s al e of n a rc o tics . . . . W e re w e to h o ld th e d e c e p tio n s o f th e a g e n t in th is c a se c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ohi bi t ed, w e w oul d come neart o a rul e thatthe us e of unde r coveragent s i n anym anner i s vi r tual l yuncons t i tut i onal pers e. Such a rul e w oul d . . . s ever el yhamperthe G overnm enti n ferr et i ng outt hos e or gani zed c r i m i nal act i vi t i es thatar e cha r act er i zed by covertdeal i ngs w i t h vi ct i m s w ho ei t hercannotordo notpr ot es t . ”) ; s ee a l s o i d. at209 (sta tin g th a t “th e G o v e rn m e n t is e n tit led to u se d e c o y s a n d to c o n c e a l th e id e n tityo f its agent s ” t o ferr etoutcr i m i nal act i vi t y ) ( ci t i ng G r i m m v. U ni t ed St at es , 156 U . S. 604 (18 9 5 ), an d A n d rew s v . U n it ed S tat es, 16 2 U . S . 4 2 0 (18 9 6 )). Iti s therefore cl ear that offi cers m ayseek ci t i zens’ consent i n invest i gati ng cri m es, and thatoffi cer s need notal w ay s announce thei rtrue i dent i t i es w hen theydo s o. T aken t ogether , t hes e tw o pr i nci pl es y i el d a thi r d pr i nci pl e; namel y , that , cons i s t entw i t h t he Four t h A m endment , pol i ce mayempl oythe s o- cal l ed “knoc k and t al k” t echni que as a t ool t o i nves t i gat e cr i m i nal act i vi t y . “K nock and t al k, ” as i ti s comm onl yr efe r r ed t o, i s the inv esti g atorytech n iqu e b yw h ich law en fo rce m en t of ficials ap p roa ch a d w ell ing -- t ypi cal l y , t hatof a pe r s on s us pect ed of s om e cr i m i nal act i vi t y- - and tr yt o obt ai n ei t heran occupa nt ’ s cons entt o ent er( t her ebycomi ng w i t hi n t he cons entexce pt i on t o t he w arr ant10

r equi r ement ) oratl eas tt o obt ai n i nform at i on fr om an occ upantthatm i ghtenabl e pol i ce to m a k e th e re q u is ite e v id e n tia ry sh o w in g n e e d e d to s e c u re a w a rr a n t. “K nock and t al k” i nves t i gat i ons nor m al l ydo notr ai s e Four t h A m endment c o n c e rn s, w e h a v e h e ld , b e c a u se “ ‘w h e n th e p o lice c o m e o n to p riv a te p ro p e rtyto c o n d u c t an in v e stig a tio n o r f o r so m e o th e r le g iti m a te p u rp o se a n d re stric t th e ir m ovement s t o pl ace s vi s i t or s coul d be expe ct ed t o go ( e. g. , w al kw ay s, dri vew ay s, p o rc h e s), o b se rv a tio n s m a d e f ro m su c h v a n tag e p o in ts a re n o t co v e re d b yth e F o u rth A m endment . ’ ” M ar as co, 318 F. 3d at519 ( quot i ng W ayne R . L aFave, 1 Sear ch and S ei zure: A T reat i se on the F ou rth A m end m ent § 2. 3(f) (3d ed. & S up p. 20 03 ); see al so U ni t ed St at es v. C hamber s , 395 F. 3d 563, 568 n. 2 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( “C our t s gener al l yhave uphel d [the ‘ knock and t al k’ ] i nves t i gat i ve pr ocedur e as a l egi t i m at e ef for tt o obt ai n a s us pect ’ s cons entt o s ear ch. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 239 F. 3d 716, 720 ( 5th C i r . 2001) (“ F e d e ra l co u rts h a v e re c o g n ize d th e ‘k n o c k a n d talk ’ stra teg ya s a re a so n a b le i nves t i gat i ve t ool w hen off i cer s s eek t o gai n an occ upant ’ s cons entt o s ear ch orw hen offi cer s r eas onabl ys us pectcr i m i nal act i vi t y . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C or m i er , 220 F. 3d 1103, 1109 ( 9t h C i r . 2000) ( concl udi ng t hat , underm at er i al l yi dent i cal ci r cumst ance s , “no s us pi ci on neede d t o be s how n i n or dert o j us t i fythe ‘ knock and t al k’ ”) . T he fl i p s i de of t hi s i s t hatci t i zens ar e fr ee nott o cooper at e w i t h a “knoc k and t al k” i nves t i gat i on, and, absent a w arr ant, po l i ce can no tdetai n them , dem and entryi nto theirho m es, or ot herw i se compel t hei rcooper at i on unl es s an exc ept i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ementappl i es . SeeI ti s i m m at er i al t hatB ut l erdi d notknow thatC ruz w as a pol i ce of fi cerw hen he 3 poi nt ed the gun athi m . T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thas m ade c l earthat [ § 2 7 0 2 ’s] re q u ire m e n t th a t th e o f f ice r b e “ in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

d u ty ” in no w ayi m pl i es t hatl i abi l i t ydepends on w hetherthe def endanti s aw ar e of h is v ictim ’s o f

f icia l sta tu s. T h e d u ties o f a p o lice o f

f ice r, li k e th e o f

f ice rs in t he i ns t antcas e, fr equent l yi ncl ude under coveri nves t i gat i on i n w hi ch the offi cer ’ s offi ci al s t atus i s i nt ent i onal l yconce al ed. W e do noti nt erpr etthe l anguage “i n per form ance of duty ” t o r equi r e a de fenda ntt o have know l edge of

t he off i cer ’ s offi ci al s t atus s i nce s uch a r eadi ng w oul d al l but

11 U ni t ed St at es v. T hom as , 430 F. 3d 274, 277- 78 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een “perm i s s i bl e cons ens ual encount er [s ] ” and e ncount er s i nvol vi ng “coe r ci ve pol i ce c onduct [s uch that ] t he D efe ndantr eas onabl ybel i eved he had no choi ce butt o compl y ”) (qu o tat ion m ark s an d alt era ti o n s o m itted). C . I ti s undi s put ed thatt he pol i ce di d notobt ai n a s ear ch w arr antbefor e ent er i ng A par t m ent#304. T he governm entnonethel es s ar gues thatexi gentci r cumst ance s j us t i fi ed pol i ce of fi cer s ’ w arr ant l es s entr yi nt o t he apa rt m ent . M or e pr eci s el y , the governm ent m ai nt ai ns t hatw hen B ut l eropened the doorand poi nt ed a gun a tO ffi cerC ruz, he gave C ru z a re a s o n a b le b e lie f th a t h is lif

e a n d th e liv e s o f

h is f e llo w o f f ic e rs w e re in d a n g e r. C f. M ar as co, 318 F. 3d at518 ( fi ndi ng exi gentci r cumst ance s exi s t ed w her e pol i ce r eas onabl ybel i eved thatdefe ndantpoi nt ed a w eapon a tthem). T he governm entfur t her a rg u e s th a t o n c e B u tler p o in ted a g u n a t O f f ice r C ru z , the p o lice h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to bel i eve thatB ut l erhad comm i t t ed var i ous cr i m i nal offe ns es unders t at e l aw , i ncl udi ng fel onyaggr avat ed as s aul tof a l aw enfor cementoffi ci al , and coul d t her efor e pur s ue 3strip th e u n d e rc o v e r o f f ice r o f th e p ro tec tio n th e leg isla tu re in ten d e d to a f f o r d h i m. C o m m o n w ea lth v . F lem ing s, 6 5 2 A . 2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 5 (P a. 19 9 5 ). 12 B ut l eronce he fl ed i nt o t he apa r t m entt o eff ectuat e hi s arr es tforthos e cr i m es not w i t hs t andi ng t he off i cer s ’ l ack of

a w arr ant . See 18 Pa. C . S. A . § 2702( a) ( 6) ( defi ni ng aggr avat ed as s aul tof var i ous publ i c off i ci al s , i ncl udi ng pol i ce of fi cer s ) . T he D i s t r i ct C our tagr eed, fi ndi ng t hatt he w arr ant l es s entr yi n i s s ue her e fe l l w i t hi n t he exi gent ci r cumst ance s exce pt i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ement , and ther efor e deni ed B ut l er ’ s m ot i on to s u p p re s s th e e v id e n c e a u th o ri tie s o b ta in e d in th e irs e a rc h o f A p a rt m e n t # 3 0 4 . “The pr es ence of exi gentci r cumst ance s i s a fi ndi ng of fa ct , w hi ch w e r evi ew for clea r error.” C o les, 4 3 7 F . 3 d at 36 6 . T h e q u esti o n , then , is w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rt com m i t t ed clearerr or i n d et erm i ning t hat exi gen tci rcum st ances j ust i fi ed the w arr antl ess entr yi n i s s ue her e. B ut l er , forhi s par t , m akes t w o ar gum ent s i n an ef for tt o s how thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to su p p re ss . F irst, B u tler c laim s th a t h e d id n o t p o in t a g u n at O ff

icer C ruz w h en h e a n sw ere d the d o o r, an d that C ruz ’s t esti m o n yto the co n tr ary i s m i s t aken. I n s uppor tof thi s cl ai m , B ut l erci t es the t es t i m onyof O ffi cerR ei ni k, w ho tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t se e B u tler h o ld in g a g u n . A c c o rd in g to B u tler, O f f ice r R e in ik w as i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o s ee w hetherB ut l erw as hol di ng a gun gi ven hi s pos i t i on t o t he s i de of the dooroppos i t e B ut l er . See B ut l erB r . at31 ( “P. O . C ruz w as i n a poorpos i t i on t o phy s i cal l ys ee the per s on w ho opened the doort o A par t m entN o. 304 and, thus , t o s ee13

w hetherornott hatper s on w as carr y i ng a w eapon. C ert ai nl y , P. O . C ruz w as i n a much w o rse p o sitio n th a n P .O . R e in ik to se e th e p e rso n w h o o p e n e d th e d o o r. P .O . R e in ik d id nots ee a gun. ”) . B eca us e O ffi cerR ei ni k di d nots ee But l erhol di ng a w eapon, B ut l er a r g u e s t h a tt h e D i s t r i c tC o u r te r r e d i n c r e d i t i n g th i s a s p e c to f O f f i c e rC ru z ’ s t e s t i m o n y. C l os erexami nat i on of O ffi cerR ei ni k’ s t es t i m onyr evea l s thatthi s purpor t ed contr adi ct i on i s m or e i l l us or yt han r eal . O ffi cerR ei ni k t es t i fi ed onl ythathe “di dn’ ts ee [B ut l er ’ s ] hands atal l , ” A pp. 592, w hi ch i s qui t e di ffe r entfr om s ay i ng thathe s aw B ut l er ’ s hands and thatB ut l erw as nothol di ng a w eapon. B eca us e O ffi cerR ei ni k di d not s ee But l er ’ s hands , he obvi ous l ycoul d nots peak t o w hetherornotB ut l erw as hol di ng a w e a p o n w h e n h e a n s w e re d th e d o o r. E ven as s um i ng ar

guendo t hata conf

l i ctexi s t ed betw een the t es t i m onyof O ffi cer R einik an d that o f O ff

icer C ruz reg ard ing the p rese n ce o r ab sen ce o f a g u n , w e a re c o mp e l l e d t o r e

j e c tBu t l e r ’ s a r g u me n tg i v e n th e d e f e r e n t i a l c l e a re r r o rs t a n d a r d th a twe m ustapp l yt o the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s factual fi nd i ng s. R econ ci l i ng con fl i ct i ng ey ew i t ness tes tim o n yis g rist f

o r th e f a c tf in d e r’s m ill , an d w e c a n n o t o v e rtu rn th a t so rt o f c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on exce pti n t he r ar es tof ci r cumst ance s . H er e, B ut l eras ks us t o overrul e the D i s t r i ctC our tand t o cr edi tt he t es t i m onyof one e y ew i t nes s t o an eve nt- - O ffi cerR ei ni k -

- overt hatof anotherey ew i t nes s t o t he s ame event- - O ffi cerC ruz - - w hom the D i s t r i ct Co u r tc r e d i t e d . Ye tBu t l e rd o e s n o te x p l a i n wh yth i s i s th e e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e i n wh i c h we s houl d notdefe rt o t he fa ct fi nder . A ccor di ngl y , even i f w e w er e t o per cei ve a c onfl i ct14

betw een the t es t i m onyof O ffi cer s C ruz and Rei ni k ( w hi ch w e do not ) , w e w oul d not su b stitu te o u r ju d g m e n t f o r th a t o f th e D istric t C o u rt. B ut l er ’ s s econd a r gum enti s t hatthe pol i ce c annotavai l themsel ves of the exi gent ci r cumst ance s exce pt i on t o j us t i fyt he w arr ant l es s s ear ch ati s s ue her e bec aus e the pol i ce them selv es m an u fa cture d the e x igen t ci rcu m stan ce s o n w h ich th eyb ase d their en try . In th is re sp e c t, B u tler r e lies a lm o st e x c lu siv e lyo n o u r d e c isio n in U n ited S tate s v . C o les , in w h ich w e in v a lid a ted a w a rra n tles s s e a rc h o n th e g ro u n d th a t p o lice h a d im p e rm iss ib ly c re a te d th e e x ig e n c y . T he pert i nentfac t s of C ol es ar e as fol l ow s . T err ence C ol es w as s t ay i ng i n a hot el r o o m i n P h i l a d e l p h i a f

o ra n e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f t i m e . T h e h o t e l m a n a g e r , D a v i d B r a d l e y, had uns ucce s s ful l ys oughtt o l ocat e C ol es t o di s cus s paym entforthe r oom , and B r adl ey l ethi m s el f i nt o C ol es ’ s r oom t o s ee i f the r oom w as s t i l l occupi ed. U pon doi ng s o, B r adl eyobs erved w hathe bel i eved t o be drugs and drug- r el at ed par aphernal i a i n t he ro o m , an d im m e d iate lyc o n tac ted th e p o lice . T h e p o lice e n ter e d C o les ’s r o o m w ith o u t a w arr ant , an entr yt he governm entl at erconce ded w as i l l egal . T her eaf t er , the pol i ce deci ded t o putC ol es ’ s r oom undercoverts ur vei l l ance . A ppar ent l yfrus t r at ed atthe progress of theirst akeo ut, authori t i es deci ded t o tryt o acce ss C oles ’s room . P oli ce fi rs t at t empt ed t o gai n acc es s bys ubt er fuge, knocki ng on t he doorand announc i ng “r oom s ervi ce. ” A voi ce f

r om i ns i de r es ponded thattheyhad notor der ed anyt hi ng, and r efus ed t o open the door . Pol i ce a gai n knocked, thi s t i m e s t at i ng thattheyw er e fr om m ai nt enanc eIt is u n c lea r w h a t am o u n t o f tim e e lap se d b e tw e e n th e p o lice ’s th re e a ttem p ts to 4 gain ent ryi n C oles . 15 and w er e r es pondi ng t o a l eak. T he occ upant s r efus ed entr ya s econd t i m e, r es pondi ng t hatt her e w as no l eak. Pol i ce a bandoned s ubt er fuge on thei rthi r d att empt . K nocki ng f o rc e f u llyo n th e d o o r, th e o f

f ice rs id e n tifie d th e m se lv e s a s p o lice , tellin g th e o c c u p a n ts t o “‘ open the door , t hi s i s t he pol i ce. ’ ” I d. at363. T he maj or i t ydes cr i bed w hatoccurr ed 4 n e x t: A tt hi s cr i t i cal j unctur e, t he off i cer s hear d t he s ounds of rus t l i ng and ru n n in g f

o o tste p s. S g t. Jo se ya ttem p ted to o p e n th e d o o r u sin g a n e lec tro n ic pas s keypr ovi ded by[the hot el m anage r ] , butthe off i cer s coul d notent er beca us e ther e w as a barl at ch overthe door . A ft erpart i al l yopeni ng the doorw i t h t he pas s key , t he off i cer s hear d t he s ound of a t oi l etfl us hi ng and th e s o u n d s o f

m o re ru n n in g . Co l e s e v e n tu a l l yo p e n e d t h e d o o rf o rth e o f f i c e r s . Up o n e n t e r i n g th e r o o m, t he pol i ce di s cover ed, among ot herthi ngs , s ever al cont ai ner s of coc ai ne bas e “c r ack, ” mul t i pl e bags cont ai ni ng coca i ne, 25 vi al s of “c r ack” coca i ne, appr oxi m at el y$2, 000 i n cas h, and a f i r earm i ns i de of Col es ’ s open ca r r y i ng bag . . . . C ol es [w as ] t hen arr es t ed. C o les, 4 3 7 F . 3 d at 36 4 (fo o tno tes o m itted). A di vi ded pane l rul ed thatt he pol i ce s ear ch vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment beca us e the pol i ce c r eat ed the exi gentci r cumst ance s on w hi ch theyr el i ed forthe w arr ant l es s s ear ch. T he maj or i t yhel d: W e e m p h a siz e th a t th e re c o rd re v e a ls n o u rg e n c yo r n e e d f o r th e o f f ice rs to take im m ed iat e a cti o n , p ri o r t o the o ff icers’ d ec isi o n to k n o ck o n C o les’s hot el r oom doorand demand entr y . I ti s , of cour s e, true thatonce the offi cer s knocked on the doorand announc ed, “open the door , thi s i s the p o lic e ,” th e yh e a rd s o u n d s in d ic a tin g th a t e v id e n c e w a s b e in g d e s tr o y e d . B utt hatexi gencydi d notar i s e natur al l yorfr om r eas onabl e pol i ceB u tl er m ak es m u ch o f th e f ac t th at i n su p p o rt ing O ff icer C ruz , the o ther o ff

icers 5 arr ay ed themsel ves “i n combatform at i on. ” The onl yw aythatthi s coul d conce i vabl ybe r el evanti s i f ( i ) B ut l erw as aw ar e of thes e off i cer s ’ pr es ence and ( i i ) as a r es ul t , B ut l er re a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d th a t h e h a d n o o p tio n b u t to o p e n th e d o o r a n d c o o p e ra te w ith C ru z . B eca us e ther e i s no evi dence t hatB ut l erw as even a w ar e of thes e off i cer s ’ pr es ence ( l et al one thatt heyw er e pol i ce of fi cer s ) , the off

i cer s ’ choi ce of

t act i cal form at i on i s bes i de th e p o in t. 16 in v e stig a tiv e tac tics . Q u ite to th e c o n tra ry , the o f f ice rs, a f ter th e ir p re tex tu a l an n o u n c e m e n ts h a d f a iled to g a in e n tryto ro o m 5 1 1 , d e lib e ra tely cr eat ed the exi gencybyknocki ng on t he doort o r oom 511 and demandi ng e n t r y. I d. at371. T h is c a se is c lea rlyd istin g u ish a b le f ro m C o les . F o r o n e , O f f ice r C ru z a n d h is f e llo w o f f ic e rs w e re f

a r l e s s c e rt a in th a t c ri m in a l a c tiv ity w a s o c c u rr in g in th e d w e llin g . I ti s t rue thatan i nform anthad al l eged thatdrug tr aff i cki ng w as occurr i ng, butthe i nform ant ’ s r el i abi l i t yw as unknow n and the off i cer s had bee n unabl e t o corr obor at e the t i p, as t heydi d i n C ol es , byent er i ng the dw el l i ng and vi ew i ng the evi dence for t hemsel ves . A s a partof thi s i nves t i gat i on, O ffi cerC ruz knocke d on the doorof A par t m ent#304 and i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as “C hr i s , ” w hi l e hi s fel l ow offi cer s pr ovi ded back up , a perfect l yreas on able pr ecauti on i n li gh tof the i nfo rm ant’ s w arni ng that atl east o n e o c c u p a n t o f

A p a rtm e n t # 3 0 4 w a s a rm e d . B u tler w a s f re e to sp e a k w ith “ C h ris” o r to 5 i gnor e hi m ; had he c hos en the l at t er , O ffi cerC ruz coul d nothave l aw ful l ydemanded entr ygi ven the off

i cer s ’ l ack of

a w arr ant . I ti s undi s put ed thatB ut l eropened the door v o lu n tar ily . C ritica lly , w h e n h e d id so , h e p o in ted a g u n a t O f f ice r C ru z . A t th a t p o in t, a n d o n ly at th a t p o in t, e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s a ro s e , cr eat ed by But l er , as O ffi cerC ruz hadW e not e thati n t aki ng t hi s pos i t i on, B ut l erdi r ect l ycontr adi ct s the ar gum enthe 6 advanc ed i n hi s br i ef, i n w hi ch he s t at ed that“[i ] ti s A ppel l antB ut l er ’ s ar gum entthatt he A llen to w n p o lice o f

f ice rs d id n o t h a v e th e re q u isite p ro b a b le c a u se . . . to v a lid a te th e ir w arr ant l es s entr yi nt o, and s ear ch, of the pr emi s es of A par t m entN o. 304. ” B ut l erB r . at 1 6 -1 7 . 17 r eas on t o bel i eve thathi s l i fe a nd t he l i ves of hi s fel l ow offi cer s w er e i n danger . O ffi cer C ru z re late d lyh a d p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t B u tler h a d c o m m itt e d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt bypoi nt i ng a pi s t ol athi m , and coul d t her efor e l aw ful l ypur s ue a f l eei ng B ut l eri nt o the apart m ent t o arr esthim . F or these reasons, exigentci rcum st ances j ust i fi ed the officer s’ e n tryin to A p a rtm e n t # 3 0 4 to se c u re B u tler’ s a rre st. B u tler d isa g re e s, m a in tain in g a t o ra l ar g u m e n t th a t b e c a u se th e p o lice h a d p ro b a b le caus e t o obt ai n a s ear ch w arr ant , t heyi m perm i s s i bl yengage d i n a “knoc k and t al k” i nves t i gat i on. I n t hi s r es pect , B ut l err el i es on ours t at ementi n C ol es thatthe pol i ce “ had 6 no l egi t i m at e r eas on t o ut i l i ze the ‘ knock and t al k’ pr ocedur e” i n vi ew of the fa ctthatt he o f f ic e rs a lr e a d yh a d (i n th e m a jo ri ty’s v ie w ) p ro b a b le c a u s e to o b ta in a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. I d. at370. B eca us e the off i cer s had pr obabl e ca us e t o s us pectcr i m i nal act i vi t yw as goi ng o n in A p a rtm e n t # 3 0 4 , B u tler a rg u e s, th e w a rra n tles s s e a rc h a t issu e h e re w a s e q u a lly i nval i d, and the off

i cer s ’ fai l ur e t o obt ai n a s ear ch w arr antm i l i t at es i n favorof a f i ndi ng t hatt he pol i ce c r eat ed the exi gentci r cumst ance s i n i s s ue. T her efor e, B ut l eras s ert s , the e v id e n c e th e yd is c o v e re d is p ro p e rl yd e s ig n a te d f ru it o f th e p ro v e rb ia l p o is o n o u s tr e e . W e ar e unper s uaded. W hi l e i ti s true thatthe off i cer s i n t hi s cas e, as i n C ol es , m ay h a v e h a d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s e c u r e a wa r r a n tb a s e d o n i n f o r ma n t s ’ o b s e r v a t i o n s , we18

cannots ee w hyt he exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e, i n and of i t s el f, s houl d m ake a ny cons t i tut i onal di ffe r ence t o t he w arr ant l es s s ear ch ei t heri n t hatcas e ori n t hi s one. T he Supr eme C our thas m ade c l eart hat“[l ] aw enfor cementoffi cer s ar e underno cons t i tut i onal dut yt o cal l a hal tt o a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on the mom enttheyhave the m i ni m um evi dence t o es t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e, a quantum of evi dence w hi ch mayfal l far shortof the am ou nt necessaryt o sup po rta cri m i nal conv i ct i on . ” H off a v. U nit ed S t at es, 3 8 5 U .S . 2 9 3 , 3 1 0 (1 9 6 6 ). U n d e r a c o n tra ryru le, p o lice w o u ld b e re q u ire d , in e f f e c t, t o m ake the veryevi dent i arydet erm i nat i ons thatthe Four t h A m endmentexpr es s l yr es erves t o m agi s t r at es . See J ohns on v. U ni t ed St at es , 333 U . S. 10, 13- 14 ( 1948) . W hati s m or e, su ch a ru le l ikelyw o u ld h av e a p rof o u n d ch il li n g ef

fe ct on p o li ce inv esti g ati v e tac ti cs. If e x c e ss iv e e v id e n c e o f

c rim in a l ac tiv ityc o u ld in v a lid a te a n o th e rw ise p e rm iss ib le w arr antl ess s earch, po l i ce w ou l d u nd ers t and ablybe rel uctantt o em ployeven tho se in v e stig a tiv e tac tics su c h a s “ k n o c k a n d talk ” w h ich n o rm a llyd o n o t ra ise F o u rth A m endmentconce r ns . T hi s i s s o beca us e i f pol i ce kne w thati f thei r“knock a nd t al k” w entas pl anned a nd t heyobt ai ned the r equi s i t e cons entt o ent erthe apa r t m entorot her in f o rm a tio n b o lste rin g th e ir a b ili tyto d e m o n stra te p ro b a b le c a u se , the f ru its o f th e ir i nves t i gat i on nonethel es s w oul d be s us cept i bl e t o j udi ci al s uppr es s i on on t he gr ound t hat p o lic e h a d p ro b a b le c a u s e a t th e tim e th e yin itia te d th e “ k n o c k a n d ta lk .” T hatcannotbe r i ght . T he Four t h A m endment , as cour t s have i nt erpr et ed and appl i ed i t , s et s a mi ni m um evi dent i aryhur dl e thatl aw enfor cementm us tcl earbefor e they19

can o btai n a w arr ant that per m i t s them t o en t er a pers on ’s ho m e l aw full y ; i tdo es not al so setan ev i den t i arycei l i ng t hat, i f t ransgr essed, cou l d inval i date a s ub sequen tw arr antl ess s e a rc h e v e n w h e re th a t s e a rc h f a lls w ith in a n e x c e p tio n to th e w a rr a n t r e q u ir e m e n t. Scrut i nyforan over abundanc e of e vi dence of cr i m i nal act i vi t ycoul d m or eover have the anomal ous eff ectof i m m uni zi ng s om e cr i m i nal act i vi t yi n t he name of the Four t h A m endmenteven w hen a pe r s on’ s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s have notbeen im p lica ted . F o r in sta n c e , as su m e th a t C o les , in r e sp o n se to th e o f f ice rs’ a n n o u n c e m e n ts of “r oom s ervi ce” and “mai nt enanc e, ” corr ect l ydeduce d t hatthe men out s i de hi s door w er e pol i ce of

fi cer s , and opene d fi r e thr ough t he door . A tthe poi ntC ol es fi r ed, pol i ce h a d n e ith e r a n n o u n c e d th e m se lv e s n o r trie d to e n ter th e a p a rtm e n t; th u s, a t th a t p o in t, t her e w oul d have be en no Four t h A m endmentvi ol at i on. I tcannots er i ous l ybe cont ended th a t, on c e C o les f

ire d a t th e o f

f ice rs in o u r h yp o th e tica l, th e re b yp ro v id in g p ro b a b le caus e, t he Four t h A m endmentw oul d have pr event ed pol i ce f r om ent er i ng the apa r t m ent w i t houta w arr antt o appr ehend Col es i n t hatcas e, notw i t hs t andi ng w hat everquantum of i ncul pat or yevi dence t he off i cer s m i ghthave pos s es s ed bef or e att empt i ng thei ri l l - fat ed “knock a nd t al k. ” C f. E w ol s ki v. C i t yof B runs w i ck, 287 F. 3d 492, 505 ( 6th C i r . 2002) ( “W hen an of

fi cerobs erves fac t s gi vi ng r i s e t o exi gentci r cumst ance s i n t he cour s e of su c h a c o n se n su a l en c o u n ter , itu su a llyc a n n o t b e sa id th a t th e o f f ice r im p e rm iss ib ly ‘c re a ted ’ th e e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s. A lth o u g h [ th e o f f ice rs’ ] stra teg ic d e c isio n n o t to i dent i fyt hemsel ves i m m edi at el ym ayhave be en i l l - advi s ed, and mayeven ha ve20

contr i but ed t o [the s us pect ’ s ] agi t at i on, thi s conductdi d notgi ve r i s e t o a cl ai m thatthe p o li ce im p erm issi b lycre ated the e x igen cy . ”). I n t he end, B ut l er ’ s pr offe r ed i nt erpr et at i on of C ol es w oul d r equi r e l aw enfor cementt o s eek a s ear ch w arr antas s oon as offi cer s bel i eved theycoul d m ake the r equi s i t e pr obabl e ca us e s how i ng forfea rof obt ai ni ng t oo m uch i ncul pat oryevi dence t hat c o u l d l a t e rc o me b a c k t o i n v a l i d a t e a n o t h e r wi s e p e r mi s s i b l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Atth e s a me t i m e, how ever , i f off

i cer s s oughta s ear ch w arr antt oo s oon, a magi s t r at e w oul d be cons t i tut i onal l ybound t o tur n t hem aw ay . T he Four t h A m endmentdoes notcompel l aw enfo rcem ent t o p erform t his sortof “n ot t oo soon , no tt oo l at e, bu tj ustri gh t ” G oldi l ock ss t y l e ana l y s i s t o det erm i ne w hen theys houl d s eek a w arr ant , and w e r efus e t o endor s e an a n a lysis th a t w o u ld e f

f e c tiv e ly p la c e o f

f ic e rs o n th e h o rn s o f

th is d ile m m a . W e ar e s i m i l ar l yunper s uaded byB ut l er ’ s s ugges t i on thatO ffi cerC ruz’ s us e of s ubt er fuge i n conduct i ng t he “knoc k and t al k” demonstr at es the unr eas onabl enes s of the i nves t i gat i on. O ffi cerC ruz t es t i fi ed thathe fe l ti dent i fy i ng hi m s el f as l aw enfor cement w ou l d d et er the o ccup ants from op ening t he d oo r and co nv ers i ng . A pp . 28 1. T hu s, O ffi cerC ruz’ s s ubt er fuge w as s i m pl ya prudentand r eas onabl e ada pt at i on of the “knoc k a n d talk ” tec h n iq u e to th e c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d n o t, as in C o les , a th in ly -v e iled a ttem p t to pr eci pi t at e the cr i s i s nece s s aryt o j us t i fya w arr ant l es s i ntrus i on. I ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed that p o lice d o n o t n e c e ss a rilyh a v e to id e n tifyth e m se lv e s a s p o lice w h e n th e yin v e stig a te c rim in a l ac tiv ity . S e e L e w is , 3 8 5 U .S . at 2 1 0 (sta tin g th a t “th e G o v e rn m e n t is e n tit led to21

us e dec oy s and t o conce al t he i dent i t yof i t s agent s ” t o ferr etoutcr i m i nal act i vi t y ) . T he m er e us e of s ubt er fuge, w i t houtaddi t i onal evi dence of pr et ext , does noti nval i dat e a

“ k n o c k a n d ta lk ” in v e s tig a tio n . Fi nal l y , w e ca nnotagr ee w i t h B ut l erthatO ffi cerC ruz’ s i nves t i gat i on w as unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the off i cer s ’ bel i ef thatatl eas tone of the occ upant s of A par t m ent #304 w as arm ed. A s w e have r epea t edl ynot ed, fi r earm s ar e verycomm on t ool s of the drug t r ade, s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R us s el l , 134 F. 3d 171, 183 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ; U ni t ed S t a t e s v . P r i c e , 1 3 F . 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 8 - 1 9 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) , a n d p o l i c e o f f i c e r s w i l l a l m o s ta l w a ys have s o me re a s o n to s u s p e c t th a t th e ta rg e ts o f th e ird ru g in v e s tig a tio n s a re a rm e d . A ccor di ngl y , acc ept i ng B ut l er ’ s ar gum entw oul d eff ect i vel ydoom “knock a nd t al k” as an acc ept abl e t echni que i n drug i nves t i gat i ons . T hi s , w e r efus e t o do. Foral l of thes e r eas ons , w e r ej ectB ut l er ’ s cont ent i on thatthe governm entcr eat ed t he exi gentci r cumst ance s i n i s s ue her e. D . B ut l er ’ s fi nal ar gum enti s a cha l l enge t o t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s uppor t i ng h is c o n v ictio n . B u tler h a s a d a u n tin g b u rd e n to c a rry , as w e m u st v iew th e e v id e n c e “ in t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , and cr edi tal l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s that s uppor tt he ver di ct [ ] . ” U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 280 F. 3d 318, 342 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng G l as s erv. U ni t ed St at es , 315 U . S. 60, 80 ( 1942) ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e ca nnotdi s turb t he j ur y ’ s ver di cti f “a nyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of theB ec au se n eith er p artyh as ra ised the issu e, w e d o n o t dec ide w h ethe r B u tl er’s 7 s uffi ci encyof the evi dence chal l enge i s for ecl os ed bythe l aw of the ca s e. See U ni t ed St at es v. Sheer an, 699 F. 2d 112, 115 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Schaff , 948 F .2 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 6 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 22 cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ” bas ed on the evi dence i ntr oduced a ttr i al . Per ez, 280 F . 3 d at 34 2 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A tt he out s et , w e not e thatw e have al r eadyr ej ect ed an i dent i cal chal l enge by But l e r ’ s c o- de fe nd a nt , Bi l l M urr a y , i n a s e pa r a t e a pp e a l . U ni t e d St a t e s v. M urr a y , 19 3 F. A p p ’x 1 4 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c h a llen g in g su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is convi ct i on forcons pi r acy ) . A s t he fa ct s s etfor t h pr evi ous l ym ake c l ear , l aw 7 enfor cementdi s cover ed copi ous amount s of drugs and drug- r el at ed par aphernal i a i n t he cour s e of thei rs ear ch, cat chi ng B ut l er ’ s co- defe ndantr ed- handed. G i ven thi s , and gi ven t he i ncr i m i nat i ng pos t - arr es ts t at ement s m ade byeac h defe ndant , i tw as a s hor tanal yt i cal lea p f o r th e ju ryto c o n c lu d e a s it d id : th a t B u tler a n d M u rra yw e re e n g a g e d in ill icit nar cot i cs t r aff

i cki ng. I n vi ew of thi s overw hel m i ng evi dence of B ut l er ’ s gui l t , w e have no di ffi cul t ydet erm i ni ng t hatt he evi dence i n t hi s cas e fa rexce eded the mi ni m um q u a n tu m r e q u i r e d t o s u s t a i n t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c ta g a i n s th i m. III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt in a ll res pects .