## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary31,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 2287 S HERI DAN W ALKER,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO ( D. C. NO . CR- 0 4 - 5 1 9 - RB) C har l es A . H arw ood, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , L as C ruces , N ew M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. D avi d W i l l i ams, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , ( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , and Laur a Fas hi ng, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , on the br i ef) , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. B efo re HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. Sher i dan W al kerw as i ndi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co on cha r ges of bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of fi r earm s and c e rt a in typ e s o f

a m m u n itio n , s ee 1 8 U. S . C. § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) . He-2-

m oved t o s uppr es s the evi dence found i n hi s hom e dur i ng a s w eep bypol i ce offi cer s , and the di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on. H e then pl eade d gui l tyt o the c h a r g e s b u tr e s e r v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l t h e d e n i a l o f h i s mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . On a p p e a l h e c h a lle n g e s th a t d e n ia l. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ever s e the dec i s i on of the di s tr i ctcourtand r emand fori tt o det erm i ne w hetherexi gentci r cumst ance s m ayhave a l l ow ed pol i ce t o s ear ch the hous e for vi ct i m s i n need of

i m m edi at e ai d. I . FACTS I n t he ea r l yaft ernoon of O ct ober26, 2003, an anonym ous w om an ca l l ed 911 i n R oos evel tC ount yt o r eportt hatt w o m en at1868 H i ghw ay236 had guns and w er e thr eat eni ng t o ki l l eac h other . W hen the di s pat cheras ked the ca l l er w h a t th e tw o m e n w e re d o in g a t th e m o m e n t, s h e re p lie d , “ I d o n ’t k n o w . I l e f t.” R . V o l. III a t 9 8 -9 9 . A t 1 2 :3 3 p .m . the d isp a tch e r fo rw a rd e d th e in fo rm a tio n to D eputySher i ff M al i n Par ker . Par keratt empt ed t o confi r m t he addr es s by r efe r ence t o t he Sher i ff’ s hom e, w hi ch he kne w t o be at600 H i ghw ay236. A ft er an appa r entm i s comm uni cat i on w i th the di s pat cher , he arr i ved att he home next do or t o the Sh eri ff’s, w her e a w om an w as s t andi ng out s i de gar deni ng. H e as ked t he w om an w hethers he had he ar d anyguns hot s ors een a nythi ng unus ual i n the nei ghbor hood; s he r epl i ed thats he had not . Par kerqui ckl yr eal i zed thathe w as at t he w r ong hous e, and that1868 H i ghw ay236 w as on the others i de of the-3-

S h e riff ’s h o m e . O n c e h e sa w th e h o u se a t 1 8 6 8 H ig h w a y2 3 6 , h e re c o g n ize d it fro m p rev iou s ex p erien ce as th at of S h erida n W alke r. D e sp ite th e c o n f

u sio n D e p u tyP a rk e r a rriv e d a t th e W a lk e r re sid e n c e w ith in ni ne or t en m i nut es of t he di s pat ch al er t . H e s aw no car s orpeopl e nea rt he h o u se . A s h e a p p ro a c h e d th e h o u se , h e h e a rd o v e r h is p o lice ra d io th a t D e p u ty R a u l R o s a w a s m e e tin g w ith J o h n W a lk e r— S h e ri d a n ’s s o n — a t th e p o lic e s ta tio n . D ur i ng t he meet i ng R os a had he ar d the al er tand not i ced thatt he addr es s w as Jo h n W a lk e r’s . P a rk e r ra d io e d R o sa to a sk w h e th e r Jo h n W a lk e r h a d sa id anyt hi ng abouts om eone a tt he hous e bei ng arm ed, butR os a had no a ddi t i onal i nform at i on. Par kert hen as ked R os a w ho w as i nvol ved i n the al t er cat i on m ent i oned i n t he al ert ; R os a r epl i ed thati tw as s uppos ed t o be J ohn and Sher i dan W alke r. A s D eputyPar kerw al ked t o the doorof the W al kerhom e, t w o other offi cers arr i ved . H e kn ock ed seve ral t i m es on the st orm do or ( w hich w as gl ass w i t h a met al fr ame) an d an n o u n ce d h im self e ac h ti m e b ysay ing “S h eriff ’s o ffic e ,” R . V ol . I I I at20 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ; buthe gotno r es pons e. H e opene d t he s t or m doort o knock on the i nnerw ooden door , w hi ch w as about10 i nches ajar. ( A l t hough M r . W al ker ’ s w i fe t es t i fi ed thatt he doorhad a doorbel l , Par ker t es t i fi ed thathe di d nots ee one , orhe w oul d have us ed i t ) . A s he knocke d, he a n n o u n c e d in a lo u d , c o m m a n d in g v o ic e th a t h e w a s f ro m th e S h e ri ff ’s o ffic e . H i s knock ca us ed the doort o open further , buthe s aw no one i ns i de and nothi ng-4-

i ndi cat i ng t hat a phy s i cal s t ruggl e had t aken pl ace . H e aga i n announce d “Sher i ff’ s offi ce, ” atw hi ch poi nthe hea r d a voi ce s houtfr om i ns i de the hous e, “Y eah, and I gota goddamn gun. ” Id. a t 2 2 (e m p h a s is o m itte d ). D eputyPar kerand the tw o otheroffi cer s i m m edi at el yent er ed the home and o rde red the s p ea k er, Sh erida n W alke r, to k ee p h is ha n d s in the air. T h e o fficers s ubdued M r . W al ker , handcuffed hi m , and t ook hi m t o the fr ontpor ch. B utt hey di d notpl ace hi m underarr es t . Par kert es t i fi ed thatbeca us e the di s pat cherhad report ed tw o m en w i t h g un s i n the hou se, t he o ffi cers suspect ed thatsom eon e el se m i gh tst i l l be in the h ou se, ei t her hurtor posi ng a t hreatt o the officer s. T hey t her efor e conduc t ed a s w eep of t he bedr oom s , bathr oom s , and cl os et s , l ooki ng w her e s om eone c oul d have be en hi di ng. D ur i ng thats w eep theydi s cover ed fi rearm s i n p l ai n v i ew i n tw o o f t he b edroom s. A c h e c k o n t h e fi r e a r ms det erm i ned thats ever al w er e s t ol en, s o M r . W al kerw as arr es t ed. M r . W al kerw as i ndi ct ed on tw o count s : one forbei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of the fi r earm s found dur i ng t he s w eep, and one forbei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of amm uni t i on. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r . W al kercont ends t hatthe evi dence s ei zed f r om hi s hom e mustbe s uppr es s ed bec aus e ( 1) t he entr yi nt o hi s hom e w as unl aw ful and ( 2) even i f the entr yw as l aw ful , t he s w eep of hi s hom e w as not . “W hen r evi ew i ng the deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e vi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the go vernm ent, accep tt he d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng s of fact unl ess cl earl yerr on eou s,-5-

a n d re v iew d e n o v o th e u lti m a te d e ter m in a tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endment . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Appers on , 441 F. 3d 1162, 1184 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts “ [ t]h e rig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e se c u re in t hei rper s ons , hous es , paper s , and effec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and seizu res.” U . S . C o n st. am en d . IV . P u b li c o ffici als tri g g er the am en d m en t’ s pr ot ect i ons w hen theyi nt rude upon an i ndi vi dual ’ s r eas onabl e expe ct at i on of p ri v a c y . See Kyl l o v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 3 3 U .S . 2 7 , 3 3 -3 4 (2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ A ] F o u rth A m end m ent s earch do es notoccur— even w hen the expl i ci t l ypr ot ect ed l ocat i on of a ho use i s conce r ned— unl es s t he i ndi vi dual m ani fes t ed a s ubj ect i ve e x p e c tatio n o f

p riv a c yin th e o bjec t o f th e c h a llen g e d se a rc h , an d so c ietyis w i l l i ng t o r ecogni ze thatexpec t at i on as r eas onabl e. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks an d b rac k ets o m itted)); Un itedS ta tes v . B u te , 4 3 F . 3 d 5 3 1 , 5 3 4 n . 4 (10 th C ir . 1994) ( “A ‘ s ear ch’ occur s w hen an e xpect at i on of pr i vacyt hats oci etyi s pr epar ed to co n side r reaso n ab le i s inf ri n g ed . ”). I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e F o u r t h Am e n d me n ti mp o s e s s tr i c tl i mi t s o n wh e n l a we n fo rc e m e n t o ff

ice rs m a ye n ter a h o m e w ith o u t a w a rra n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. McC ul l ough , 457 F. 3d 1150, 1163 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( “‘ I ti s a bas i c pr i nci pl e of F o u rth A m e n d m e n t law th a t se a rc h e s a n d se izu re s in sid e a h o m e w ith o u t a w arr antar e pr es um pt i vel yunr eas onabl e. ’ ” ( quot i ng P ayton v. New York , 44 5 U. S. 5 7 3 , 5 8 6 (1 9 8 0 )). A w a rra n tles s e n tryin to a h o m e m a yb e ju stified , h o w e v e r, in-6-

c e rt a in e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See C oo l i dg e v. New Hampshir e , 40 3 U. S. 443, 474- 75 ( 1971) ( “I ti s acc ept ed, atl eas tas a mat t erof pr i nci pl e, thata s ear ch or sei zure carr i ed o ut on a suspect’ s prem i ses w i tho ut a w arr ant i s per s e u n re a so n a b le, u n les s th e p o lice c a n sh o w th a t itfa lls w ith in o n e o f a c a re f u lly d e fin e d se t o f

e x c e p tio n s b a se d o n th e p re se n c e o f ‘e x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s.’” ); s ee als o B righ am C i t

y v. Stuart , 126 S. C t . 1943, 1947 ( 2006) ( “W e have hel d, for e x a m p le, th a t law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs m a ym a k e a w a rra n tles s e n tryo n to p riv a te pr oper t yt o fi ghta fi r e and i nves t i gat e i t s caus e, t o pr eventthe i m m i nent d e s tru c tio n o f

e v id e n c e , o r t o e n g a g e in ‘h o t p u rs u it’ o f a fle e in g s u s p e c t.” (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d )); G eorgi a v. R andol ph , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 5 1 5 , 1 5 2 4 n .6 (2 0 0 6 ) ( lis tin g “ h o t p u rs u it,” “ p ro te c tin g th e s a fe ty o f . . . p o lic e o ffic e rs ,”

“ im m in e n t d e stru c tio n [ o f a ] b u ild in g ,” “ lik e lih o o d th a t [ a ] su sp e c t w ill i m m i nent l yfl ee, ” and “ a fa i r l yper cei ved nee d t o acton the s pott o pr es erve evi dence ” as exi gentci r cumst ance s thatm i ghtj us t i fya w arr ant l es s s ear ch of a r e s i d e n c e ) . Wi t h t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n mi n d , we tu rn t o M r . Wa l k e r ’ s two argum ents . A . I ni t i al E nt ry M r . W al kerchal l enges t he entryi nt o hi s hom e on tw o gr ounds . Fi r s t , he cont ends t hatD eputyPar kervi ol at ed the Four th A m endmentbyopeni ng the s cr een doort o knock on the part i al l yopened i nnerdoor . Second, he cont ends t hat-7-

Par kercomm i tt ed an a ddi t i onal vi ol at i on byent er i ng hi s hom e af t erhe announc ed th a t h e h a d a g u n . T o sup po rtt he fir stcon t enti on , M r. W al ker ci t es Uni t ed Stat es v. A r el lanoO choa , 461 F. 3d 1142 ( 9t h C i r . 2006) . I n thatcas e B or derPatr ol A gent s ent er ed a tr ai l er( w i t houtknocki ng) aft eropeni ng a s cr een doorand a pa r t i al l ycl os ed s o lid d o o r. S e e id . a t 1 1 4 3 -4 4 . T h e c o u rt a ffirm e d th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to s uppr es s but t he opi ni on cont ai ns di ctum that openi ng a s cr een doorw hen the s ol i d doori s open cons t i tut es a Four th A m endmenti ntrus i on beca us e i tvi ol at es th e o c c u p a n t’ s re a s o n a b le e x p e c ta tio n o f p ri v a c y . See i d. at1145. R egar dl es s of t he mer i t s of thi s pr opos i t i on i n s om e ci r cumst ance s , w e s ee no vi ol at i on of M r. W a lk e r’s re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c yin D e p u tyP a rk e r’s k n o c k o n h is i nnerdoor . Par kerfi r s tknocked s ever al t i m es on the s t or m door . W hen that el i ci t ed no r es pons e, he tr i ed t o be hea r d byknocki ng on the i nnerdoor , an ac t t hatr equi r ed openi ng t he s t or m door . W e s us pectt hatm os tvi s i t or s w oul d have d o n e the sam e. In o u r view , o p en ing the s torm d o o r t o k n o ck o n the in n er d o o r, even though t he i nnerdoorw as par t i al l yopen, w as nota Four th A m endment in tru sio n b e c a u se su c h a c tio n d o e s n o t v io late a n o c c u p a n t’s re a so n a b le e x p e c t a t i o n o f

p r i v a c y. T u rn in g n e x t to D e p u tyP a rk e r’s e n tryin to th e h o u se , w e a g re e w ith M r . W al kert hatt he entr yw as a Four th A m endmenti ntrus i on. T o j us t i fyt he e n tr y , th e g o v e rn m e n t r e lie s o n th e e x ig e n t- c ir c u m s ta n c e s d o c tr in e . See Uni t ed-8-

Stat es v. Naj ar , 451 F. 3d 710 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T hi s doctr i ne cr eat es an exc ept i on t o t he gene r al pr ohi bi t i on of w arr ant l es s entr i es w hen ( 1) t he off i cer s had an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e bas i s t o bel i eve thatt her e w as an i m m edi at e nee d t o ent er t o pr ot ectt he s afe t yof themsel ves orother s , and ( 2) t he conduc tof the entryw as re a s o n a b le . See i d. a t 7 1 8 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f d e m o n stra tin g b o th e le m e n ts . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Scr oger , 9 8 F . 3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcourtt hatexi gentci r cumst ance s s uppor t ed the o ffice rs’ e n try . W h e n D e p u tyP a rk e r k n o c k e d o n th e in n e r d o o r, ag a in announci ng t hathe w as fr om t he Sher i ff’ s offi ce, M r . W al kerr es ponded, “Y eah, and I gota goddamn gun. ” R . V ol . I I I at22 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) . T hi s t hr eat eni ng re m a rk ju s tifie d th e o ffic e rs in ta k in g p ro m p t a c tio n to p ro te c t th e m s e lv e s . A l t hough r etr eatw as an al t ernat i ve, i tw as al s o r eas onabl e fort hem t o t ake con t rol of the si tuati on byenter i ng t o d i sarm M r. W al ker, w ho cou l d o therw i se c o n tin u e to p o se a d a n g e r to th e o ffice rs a n d o th e rs. B e c a u se th e o ffice rs c o u ld re a so n a b lyb e liev e th a t th e yn e e d e d to e n ter M r. W a lk e r’s h o m e to p ro tec t th e ir o w n safety , an d b ec au se th eyac ted re aso n ab lyin en teri n g an d restrai n ing M r. W a lk e r, w e h o ld th a t th e o ffice rs c o m m itt e d n o F o u rth A m e n d m e n t v io latio n in t ho se act i on s. B . S w eep of t h e H ou se M r . W al kernextar gues t hatt he w arr ant l es s s w eep of hi s hom e af

t erhe had b e e n h a n d c u ffe d a n d re m o v e d to th e p o rc h a lso v io late d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.-9-

T h e d istri ct co u rtjusti fied the s ea rch as a “p rotec ti v e sw ee p ” u n d er Mar yland v. B u ie , 494 U . S. 325, 327 ( 1990) ( “A ‘ pr ot ect i ve s w eep’ i s a qui ck and l i m i t ed s ear ch of pr emi s es , i nci dentt o an arr es tand conduc t ed t o pr ot ectt he s afe tyof p o lice o ffice rs o r o th e rs.” ). S u c h a sw e e p is p e rm itt e d if “ th e re [ a re ] a rticu lab le fa c ts w h ich , tak e n to g e th e r w ith th e ra tio n a l in fe re n c e s f ro m th o se fa c ts, w o u ld w arran t a reaso n ab lyp rud en t office r i n b eli ev ing that the a rea to b e sw ep t harb o rs an i ndi vi dual pos i ng a dange rt o thos e on the arr es ts cene . ” Id . at334. T h is co u rth as stated that a “ p rotec ti v e sw ee p ” o f a reside n ce to en su re o ffice r sa fe tym a ytak e p lac e o n lyin c id e n t to a n a rre st. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Torres- C astro , 4 7 0 F .3 d 9 9 2 , 9 9 6 -9 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c o llec tin g c a se s); Uni t ed S ta tes v . D a v is , 290 F. 3d 1239, 1242 n. 4 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( “A s i tappea r s i n the fi r s ts ent ence of B u ie , ‘ a “pr ot ect i ve s w eep” i s a qui ck and l i m i t ed s ear ch of p re m is e s , i ncidentt o a n a rres tand conduc t ed t o pr ot ectt he s afe tyof pol i ce offi cer s orot her s . ’ ” ( i nt ernal br acke t s om i t t ed) ) ( quot i ng B u ie , 4 9 4 U .S . a t 3 2 8 ). B utM r . W al kerhad noty etbeen a rr es t ed w hen the off i cer s conduct ed the s w eep, a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t h a s n o t a rg u e d th a t th e s w e e p w a s in c id e n t to a n a rr e s t. T h e re fo re , B u ie cannots uppor tt he s w eep. T h e sw e e p m a yn e v e rth e les s h a v e b e e n p ro p e r u n d e r th e e x ig e n tci r cumst ance s doctr i ne s etouti n Naj ar , 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 7 1 7 . In th e c o n tex t o f th is c a s e , h o w e v e r , a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e e x i g e n t - c i r c u m s t a n c e s d o c tr i n e t o j u s t i f y a s w eep fort he purpos e of offi cers afe tyw oul d evi s cer at e ourpr ece dent-10-

e s t a b l i s h i n g a n i n c i d e n t - t o - a r r e s tr e q u i r e m e n tfo rs u c h a p r o t e c t i v e s w e e p . We not e thatbot h Naj ara n d th e S u p re m e C o u rt o p in io n o n w h ic h it r e lie d , B r igham C ity , 126 S. C t . 1943, i nvol ved Four th A m endmenti ntrus i ons j us t i fi ed bya thr eat t o a c i v i l i a n ’ s s a fe t y . T h e r e fo r e , a b s e n tc l a r i fi c a t i o n f r o m a n e n b a n c c o u r t , we r efr ai n fr om j us t i fy i ng t hi s s w eep byappl y i ng the exi gent - ci r cumst ance s e x c e p t i o n b a s e d o n o ffi c e rs a fe t y. O n t he other hand, t he governm ent ar gued i n di s tr i ct courtand mai nt ai ns befor e us t hatt he s w eep of M r . W al ker ’ s hom e coul d be j us t i fi ed byt he r i s k of dangert o ot her s , s uch as t he per s on w i th w hom M r . W al keral l egedl yhad bee n fi ght i ng. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notaddr es s t hi s pot ent i al j us t i fi cat i on fort he s w eep. W e ther efor e r emand fora det erm i nat i on w hethert he w arr ant l es s s w eep of M r . W al ker ’ s hom e w as perm i s s i bl e undert he exi gent - ci r cumst ance s doctr i ne a s it r e la te s to v ic tim s a fe ty. See id . , 126 S. C t . at1947 ( “O ne exi gencyobvi at i ng th e re q u ire m e n t o f

a w a rra n t is th e n e e d to a ss ist p e rso n s w h o a re se rio u sly inju re d o r th re a ten e d w ith su c h inju ry .”); Naj ar , 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 7 1 4 (“ ‘[ T ]h e F o u rth A m endmentdoes notbarpol i ce offi cer s fr om m aki ng w arr ant l es s entr i es and s ear ches w hen theyr eas onabl ybel i eve thata per s on w i thi n i s i n need of i m m edi at e ai d. ’ ” ( quot i ng Mi ncey v. A r iz ona , 4 3 7 U . S . 3 8 5 , 3 9 2 (19 7 8 ))) .-11-

I I I . CONCL US I ON W e R E V E R SE t he j udgm entbel ow and R E M A N D t o the di s tr i ctcourtfor cons i der at i on of w hetherexi gentci r cumst ance s m ayhave j us t i fi ed a s ear ch of M r. W al ker’ s hom e as a sw eep for potent i al vict i m s.