## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 36 48

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*

App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d

v. * St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r

* th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

. Carl os Ram ire z, *

*

App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 11

Fi le d: Apri l 2 6, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM, an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Carl os Ram ire z ap pe al s fro m t h e d i st ric t co ur t's de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g a ho te l ro om rai d by of fic ers in Om ah a, Neb ras ka

,

in Ju ne 20 0 9

. B ecau se we co nc lu de th at th ere were no ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify the warran tl es s en try, we reve rs e.

I. BACKGRO UND

On Ju ne 29

, 20 09

, of

f i c e r s co nd uc ti ng su rv ei ll an ce at th e Grey ho un d bu s

te rm in al in Om ah a arre st ed Ju an Pere z an d Ju an Am ay a-Arm en ta carr y in g he ro in inth ei r sh oe s. Pere z in fo rm ed of fic ers th at he was tra ve li ng wit h a th ird m al e weari ng

a da rk sh irt wit h a whi te lo go

, who al so ha d he ro in in hi s sh oe s. Fo ll owi ng th e

arre st s, th e of

fic ers tri ed to un co ve r ad di ti on al ev id en ce to lo cat e th is th ird m an an d

id en ti f i e d a n d r e m ov ed se ve ral ba gs fro m un de r th e bu s. The y th en at te m pt ed to

lo cat e th e own ers of th e ret rie ve d ba gs by ap pr oa ch in g th e bu s pa ss en ge rs

, bu t

no bo dy cl ai m ed own ers hi p. A se arch of th e ab an do ne d ba gs un co ve r e d an

id en ti fic at io n card be lo ng in g to Hect or Cru z. The in ve st ig at or s sp o ke to th e bu s

d r i v e r who rep or te d th at he was m is si ng fiv e pa ss en ge rs , t wo of who m th e of fi c e r s

de te rm in ed were th e al read y -arr es te d m en

. The of fic ers were th en ab le to ob ta in th e

ti ck et in fo rm at io n for t he rem ai ni ng th ree, id en ti fy in g Luis Ib arra -Pen ue la s, Hecto r

Cru z, an d R am ire z.

Fro m th e ti ck et in fo rm at io n, of fic ers le arn ed th at Ram ire z an d Ib arra -Pen ue la s

were tra ve li ng fro m San Dieg o to Newark

, on cas h, on e-way ti ck et s, pu rch as ed in

m uc h th e sa m e fas hi on Pere z an d Am ay a-Arm en ta –wh o al so were tra ve li ng on cas h,

on e- w a y t i c k e ts

, pu rch as ed ab ou t th e sa m e ti m e or wit hi n m in ut es of each ot he r.

Cru z tra ve le d in a si m il ar fas hi on on a ne arl y id en ti cal ro ut e wit h a ti ck et pu rch as ed

wit h c as h, an d a cco m

pa ni ed Ram ire z an d Ib arra -Pen ue la s.

A bi t of a go os e ch as e en su ed

. Thro ug h co m bi ne d effo rts

, aft er an of fic er

co nt act ed lo cal cab co m

pa ni es to se e if th ere was a rece nt pi ck up fro m th e bu s st at io n,

th e of fic ers wen t to a ne arb y Bes t W es te rn ho te l to de te rm in e if th e m en po ss ib ly

wen t th er e

. The re, th e of fic ers le arn ed th at th ree in di vi du al s arri ve d at th e Bes t

W es te rn in a cab bu t di d no t st ay

. Afte r qu es ti on in g em pl oyees of th e Bes t W es te rn

,

of fic ers le arn ed th at on e of th os e in di vi du al s m at ch ed th e de sc rip ti on of th e tra ve li ng

co m pa ni on pr ov id ed by Pere z an d an ot he r m at ch ed th e ph ot o of Cru z ret rie ve d fro m

th e ab an do ne d ba g. Fu rth er in ve st ig at io n rev eal ed th at th e m en ha d th en ta ke n a cab

to th e Co m fo rt In n. At th e Co m fo rt In n, vi de o su rv ei ll an ce rev eal ed th at th ree

in di vi du al s, o ne of who m m at ch ed th e de sc rip ti on gi ve n by Pe rez, an d a no th er t ha t

m at ch ed Cru z's id en ti fic at io n card

, ex it ed a cab in fro nt of th e ho te l bu t di d no t en te r

-2

-th e ho te l. In st ead

, th ey walk ed to a ne arb y McDo na ld 's an d of fic ers no ti ced fro m th e

vi de o th at two of th em walk ed "h eav il y -fo ot ed ," or no t no rm al

. At th e McDo na ld 's,

th e of fic ers l e a r n e d fro m an em pl oyee th at sh e ha d pr ov id ed th ree in di vi du al s wit h

a ph on e bo ok an d no te d th at th e m en were lo ok in g fo r a cab

. The of fic ers co nt act ed

v a r io us lo cal cab co m

pa ni es ag ai n an d were to ld th ree in di vi du al s were pi c k e d u p

fro m th e Mc Don al d's area an d t ak en to th e Eco no Lod ge

.

At th e Eco no Lod ge

, an of fic er le arn ed fro m th e de sk cl erk th at th ree m en

ch eck ed in ab ou t a ha lf ho ur earl ie r an d th at on e of th e m en lo ok ed li ke th e pe rs on on

Cru z's id en ti fic at io n card

. The cl erk to ld th e po li ce th at th es e m en were in ro om 22 0

an d ga ve th e of

fic ers a ke y card to th e ro om

, as well as a co py of th e rece ip t sh owi ng

t h e ro om was ren te d to Cru z. Offi cers th en wen t to ro om 22 0; in al l, si x o f f i c e r s

res po nd ed at th e Eco no Lod ge

, at le as t on e of who m es ta bl is he d pe rimeter

su rv ei ll an ce. An of

fic er cl os e to th e do or te st ifi ed th at th e on ly so un d he he ard fro m

th e ro om was

, aft er he ul ti m at el y kn oc ke d on th e do or

, th e s o un d of an in di vi du al

ap pr oa ch in g th e do or

. The re is no ev id en ce th at th e m en in si de ro om 22 0 ev en kn ew

th e p ol ic e were o n t he ir t rai l.

Onc e at ro om 22 0, an of

fic er at te m

pt ed to swi pe th e ke y card to ga in en try in to

th e ro om bu t th e card di d no t work

. At tha t po in t, the of fic er blo ck ed th e pe ep ho le

,

kn oc ke d on th e do or

, an d an no un ced "h ou se ke ep in g." Cru z pa rti al ly op en ed th e do or

an d whe n th e of

fic er an no un ced hi s pr es en ce an d fla sh ed hi s ba dg e, Cru z at te m pt ed

to pu sh th e do or sh ut

. The of fic ers us ed a ram

, whi ch th ey ha d br o u g h t al on g

ap pa ren tl y an t i c i p at in g a fo rced en try, to fo rce th e do or op en

. The of fic ers fo un d

Ram ire z, Ib arra -Pen ue la s, an d Cru z in si de

. Afte r co nd uc ti ng a cu rs or y swe ep an d

se cu rin g th e th ree m en

, an in ve st ig at or no ti ced two pa irs of sh oe s on th e si de of th e

be d si m il ar to th os e pa ck ed wit h he ro in an d wor n by Pere z a n d A maya-Arm en ta

.

Ram ire z an d Ib arra -Pen ue la s de ni ed th at th es e sh oe s be lo ng ed to th em

, an d Cru z

cl ai m ed a pa ir of bo ot s lo cat ed el se whe re in th e ro om as hi s. Afte r th e m en de ni ed

own ers hi p of th e two pa ir of sh oe s by t he be d

, t h e in ve st ig at or s se arch ed th e sh oe s

-3

-fo r co nt rab an d a nd fou nd he ro in in each

. The en ti re cou rs e of ev en ts fro m th e ti m e

of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed Per e z a nd Am ay a-Arm en ta at th e bu s st at io n, an d th e of fic ers '

arri va l at th e Eco no Lod ge was a pp ro xi m at el y two an d a ha lf h ou rs

.

Befo re th e di st ric t co ur t, Ram ire z arg ue d th at th e se arch of th e ho te l ro om was

il le ga l an d co nd uc te d wit ho ut a se arch warra nt

. The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d,

an d th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d, th at th e o f f i c ers ' en try was jus ti fie d by an ex ig en t

c i r c u m st an ce: th e of

fic ers ' reas on ab le fear th at th e ev id en ce wou ld be im m in e n t l y

de st ro y ed

. The m ag is tra te jud ge 's an al y si s (al so ad op te d by th e di st ric t co ur t) fo cu se d

on th e fo ll owi ng fact s kn own to th e p o l i c e p r i o r to th e en try: 1) on e of th e

in ve st ig at or s reas on ab ly be li ev ed th e m en were at te m pt in g to el ud e th e of

fic ers aft er

th ey wit ne ss ed th e of

fic ers arre st th e two m en at th e bu s st op ; 2) th e m en in ro om 22 0

ha d pu rch as ed on e-way ti ck et s to Newark

, New Je rs ey

, wit h cas h, an d were no t fro m

Om ah a; an d 3) aft er th e of fic ers an no un ced th ei r pr es en ce, Cru z at te m pt ed to sh ut th e

do or to pr ev en t t h e o f

f i cers fro m en te rin g th e ro om

. Onc e in si de , b ecau se th e m en

di d no t cl ai m own ers hi p of th e sh oe s, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th ey were ab an do ne d an d

th us th e m en ha d n o e xp ect at io n o f pr iv acy in t he m . Accor di ng ly, th e co ur t de ni ed

Ram ire z's m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

On ap pe al Rami r e z a r gu es th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng ex ig en t

ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d th e of fic ers ' warra nt le ss en try in to th e ho te l ro om

. He cl ai m s

th at an y al le ge d "ex ig en cy ," if it ex is te d at al l on th es e fact s, ex is te d on ly be cau se th e

of fic ers crea te d it –t h a t t h e warra nt le ss

, un co ns ti tu ti on al se arch oc cu rred whe n th e

o f f i c e r u ns uc ces sf

ul ly swi pe d th e ro om card an d on ly th en di d th e of fic ers kn oc k

,

ul ti m at el y res ul ti n g i n th em br eak in g do wn th e do or to en te r. Ram ire z arg ue s th at

th ere a re n o fa ct s s up po rti ng th e o ffi cers ' fai lu re t o o bt ai n a warran t i n t hi s ca se

.

-4

-A. Sta nda rd

" Th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect s in di vi du al s ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arc h e s

an d se iz ur es by th e go ve rn m en t." Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 52 1 F.3 d 90 2, 90 5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 ).

The rig ht of th e pe op le to be se cu re in th ei r pe rs on s, ho us es

, pa pe rs

, an d

ef fe ct s, ag ai nst unr easo na bl e se arch es an d se iz ur es

, sh al l no t be vi ol at ed,

an d no W arra nt s sh al l is su e, bu t up on pr ob ab le cau se

, su pp or te d by Oath

or affi rm at io n, an d pa rti cu la rly de sc rib in g th e pl ace to be se arch ed

, an d

th e p ers on s o r th in gs to be sei zed

.

U.S. Con st . am en d. IV.

The te xt of th e Am en dm en t it se lf ex pr es sl y im po se s two req ui rem en ts

. "Fi rs t,

al l se arch es an d se iz ur es m us t be reas on ab le

. Seco n d

, a warra nt m ay no t be is su ed

un le ss pr ob ab le cau se is pr op erl y es ta bl is he d an d th e sc op e of th e au th or iz ed se arch

is se t ou t wit h pa rti cu la rit y ." Ken tu ck y v. Kin g, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 49

, 18 56 (2 01 1)

. "'[T]he ul ti m at e to uc hs to ne of th e Fo ur th A men d ment is "re as on ab le ne ss ."'" Id

. (q uo ti ng Bri gh am Ci ty v. St ua rt, 54 7 U.S. 39 8, 40 3 (2 00 6) ). So

, ev en th ou gh a

warra nt m

us t ge ne ral ly be se cu red

, se e id

., a no n- co ns en su al

, warra nt le ss se arch can

be jus ti fie d by reas on ab le ex cep ti on s, in cl ud in g ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

. W il li am s,

52 1 F.3 d at 90 8. "Th e [ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ] ex cep ti on jus ti fie s im m ed ia te po li ce

act io n w i t ho ut ob ta in in g a warra nt if li ve s are th reat en ed

, a su sp ect 's es cap e is

im m in en t, or ev id en ce is ab ou t to be de st ro y ed ." Uni te d St at es v. Bal l, 90 F.3 d 26 0,

26 3 (8 th Cir . 19 96 ).

"We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's fin di ng s of hi st or ic al fact fo r cl ear erro r, bu t th e

ul ti m at e de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e fact s as fo un d co ns ti tu te ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

is rev ie wed de no vo ." Uni te d St at es v. Kue ns tl er, 32 5 F.3 d 10 15

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ). "Th e an al y si s of whe th er [th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce] ex cep ti on to th e warra nt

-5

-req ui rem en t ha s be en m ad e ou t is an ob jecti ve on e 'fo cu si ng on wha t a reas on ab le

,

ex pe rie nc ed po li ce of

fic er wou ld be li ev e.'" Id

. at 10 21 (q uo ti ng In re Seal ed Cas e 96

-

31 67

, 15 3 F.3 d 75 9, 76 6 (D.C. Ci r. 19 98 )). "[T]he po li ce be ar a he av y bu rd en whe n

at te m pt in g t o d em on st rat e an urg en t n eed th at m ig ht jus ti fy warran tl es s s earc he s o r

arre st s." W el sh v. Wisc on si n, 4 66 U.S. 74 0, 7 49 -5 0 (1 98 4) . W he n t he ex ig en cy at

is su e is de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce, po li ce o f f i cers m us t de m on st rat e a su ffi ci en t ba si s

fo r an of fic er to bel ie ve th at so m eb od y in th e res id en ce (or ho te l ro om

, in th is cas e)

wil l im m in en tl y de st ro y ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Cl em en t, 85 4 F.2 d 11 16

, 11 19

(8 th Cir . 19 88 ).

B. Ex ig ent Ci rcumsta nces

The go ve rn m en t cl ai m s th at at th e m om en t t he off ic ers were o ut si de of r oo m

22 0, ex ig en t c i r c u ms t an ces jus ti fie d th is warra nt le ss en try be cau se th e of fic ers

be li ev ed

, ev en be fo re th ey swi pe d th e ke y card

, th at th e ris k of de st ru c t i o n of

ev id e n c e w a s im m in en t. By th e ti m e th e of fic ers arri ve d at th e ho te l, th ey ha d

g a t h e red ad di ti on al

, m in im al in fo rm at io n ab ou t th e th ree m en tra ve li ng fro m pl a c e

t o pl ace who ul ti m at el y ch eck ed in to ro om 22 0: Ram ire z, a m an who fit th e

de sc rip ti on of th e co m

pa ni on of fere d by Pere z

, w a s t rav el in g wit h two ot he rs on

si m il ar cro ss -co un try ro ut es on ti ck et s pu rch as ed in cas h

, a n d two of th em were

walk in g "h eav il y -fo ot ed ," in di cat in g th ey m ay al so be carr y in g he ro in in th ei r sh oe s.

Yet, th e go ve rn m en t fai ls to m eet it s he av y bu rd en to co nn ect th is kn owl ed ge wit h

th e ex is te nc e of ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces su pp or ti ng th e warra nt le ss en try–t ha t is

, th at

th e in ha bi ta nt s o f ro om

22 0 wo ul d i m

m in en tl y de st ro y ev id en ce.

Alan Ebe rle

, an in ve st ig at or wit h th e Neb r as ka St at e Pat ro l, te st ifi ed at th e

supp res si on he ari ng th at ba se d on th e ho te l-h op pi ng act io ns of th es e m en aft er, E be rl e

-6

-su pp os ed

, th e th ree ob se rv ed th e arre st s at th e bu s st at io n, he w a s c o n c e rn ed th at 1

th ey were tryin g to el ud e of fic ers or were go in g to de st ro y ev id en ce or pe rs on al it em s

li nk in g th em to th e cas e. Exi ge n c y, h owe ve r, do es no t ex is t by m ere su pp os it io n.

St at in g a be li ef th at th es e m en were ab ou t to de st ro y ev id en ce aft er sa fel y arri vi ng at

th e Eco no Lod ge an d ch eck in g in to th ei r ro om, se em in gl y wit ho ut kn owl ed ge th at

th ey were be in g tra ck ed by la w en fo rcem en t, is qu it e sp ecu l a t iv e. And

, as no te d,

In ve st ig at or Eb erl e's su bjec ti ve be li ef is no t de te rm in at iv e in ou r an al y si s. "[T]hi s

co ur t m us t lo ok ob

jecti ve ly at wha t a reas on ab le po li ce of fic er wou ld be li ev e [

, ]"

gi ve n th e ob

jecti ve fact s at th e of

fic er's di sp os al at th e ti m e of en try. W il li am s, 52 1

F.3 d a t 9 08

.

The Su pr em e Co ur t's ve ry rece nt op in io n in Kin g is a lo gi cal st art in g po in t in

o u r a n a l y si s. Kin g, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 49

. W hi le in st ru ct iv e on th e is su e of ex ig en cy

,

ho wev er, Kin g is no t di sp os it iv e of th e is su es be fo re us be cau se in Kin g, th e Co ur t

as su m ed th e ex is te nc e of ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces so as to fo cu s on th e is su e pr es en te d. 2

Tha t th e th ree m en ob se rv ed th e arre st s at th e bu s st at io n is an as su m pt io n by 1

I n ve st ig at or Ebe rle

. Ebe rle as su m ed th at th e reas on th es e th ree m en le ft th e bu s

st at io n was be cau se th ey ob se rv ed th e arre st of th e ot he r two b u t t he re is no reco rd

ev id en ce in su pp or t of th is as su m pt io n. In fact

, th ere is no ev id en ce reg ard in g

whe th er th e th ree m en le ft th e st at io n be fo re or aft er the of fic ers ' co nt act wit h Pere z

an d Am ay a-Arm en ta

. The of fic ers on ly kn ew th at Pere z in di cat ed he was tra ve li ng

wit h a m an la te r de te rm in ed to res em bl e Ram ire z. Wh il e In ve st ig at or Ebe rle 's

su bjec ti ve as su m

pt io n m ay be fai r, th ere is in su ffi ci en t ob jecti ve ev id en ce to su pp or t

hi s p res um

pt io n.

The Co ur t wa s care fu l to no te th at it di d no t m ak e an y de te rm in at io n as to 2

whe t h e r ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d in Kin g. The Ken tu ck y Co ur t of App eal s

fo un d th at th ere was a real ex ig en cy bu t th e Ken tu ck y Su pr em e Co u r t ex pr es se d

do ub t, "o bs erv in g th at th ere was 'cert ai nl y so m e qu es ti on as to whe th er th e so un d of

pe rs on s m ov in g [in si de th e ap art m en t] was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at ev id en ce was

be in g d es tro y ed ." Kin g, 1 31 S. Ct. at 18 62 (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (q uo ti ng Kin g v.

Co m m on weal th , 3 02 S.W .3d 64 9, 6 55 (Ky . 20 10 )). The Co ur t di d no t weig h in on

-7

-The re, th e Co ur t fo cu se d so le ly on art ic ul at in g u n d e r wha t ci rcu m st an ces po li ce

im pe rm is si bl y crea te an ex ig en cy

. Id

. at 18 62 -6 3. In do in g so

, th e Co ur t rev ie wed 3

whe th er th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on ap pl ie s whe n po li ce, by kn oc ki ng on a

do or of a res id en ce an d an no un ci ng th ei r pr es en ce, cau se th e oc cu pa nt s to at te m pt to

de st ro y ev id en ce– a m os t ba si c sc en ari o of th e "p ol ic e-cr eat ed ex ig en cy " do ct rin e. Id

.

at 18 54

. The Co ur t he ld th at an y ex ig en cy th at ex is te d was no t po li ce-c reat ed an d

th at th e warra nt le ss en try and sea rch was ju st ifi ed . Id. at 18 63

.

Kin g's di sc us s i o n of reas on ab le po li ce co nd uc t in fo rm s ou r an al y si s on th e

is su e whe th er a ge nu in e ex ig en cy

, in fact

, su pp or te d th e warra nt le ss en try in th e

i n s t a n t cas e. Rel ev an t he re, th e of fic ers in Kin g arri ve d at a do or fro m whi ch t h e y

sm el le d m ari

juan a smoke an d t he off

ic ers ba ng ed on th e d oo r as lo ud as th ey co ul d

an d an no un ced th ei r pr es en ce, sa y in g "Po li c e

, p o l ic e, po li ce," or so m et hi ng to th at

effe ct

. Id

. at 18 54

. An of fic er te st ifi ed th at as s o o n a s t h e y st art ed ba ng in g on th e

d oo r, th ey co ul d he ar pe op le in si de m ov in g an d it so un de d as th ou gh th i n g s w e r e

be in g m ov ed

, le ad in g th e of fic ers to be li ev e th at dr ug -rel at ed ev id en ce was ab ou t to

be de st ro y ed

. Id

. Acco rd in gl y

, th e of fic ers an no un ced th at th ey were go in g to m ak e

en try an d th en ki ck ed th e do or d o w n

, u lt im at el y le ad in g to th e di sc ov ery of th e

ev id en ce at is su e. Id

.

th e m at te r an d arri ve d at it s co nc lu si on

, "as su m [in g] fo r pu rp os es of arg um en t th at an

ex ig en cy ex is te d." Id. at 18 62

.

Man y co ur ts

, in cl ud in g th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it

, ha ve de ve lo pe d an ex cep ti on to th e 3

ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ru le

, th e so -cal le d "p ol ic e-cr eat ed ex ig en cy " do ct rin e. "Un de r

th is do ct rin e, po li ce m ay no t rel y on th e ne ed to pr ev en t de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce whe n

th at ex ig en cy was 'crea te d' or 'm an uf act ur ed ' by th e co nd uc t of th e po li ce." Kin g, 13 1

S. Ct

. at 18 57 (d is cu ss in g th e va rio us "p ol ic e-cr eat ed ex ig en cy " ex cep ti on te st s

de ve lo pe d by th e lo wer co ur ts an d es ta bl is hi ng t h a t

, d e sp it e th e m an y un so un d

req ui rem en ts im

po se d by th e lo w e r c o u r ts

, th e es se nt ia l pr ed ic at e to an y va li d

warra nt le ss se iz ur e of in cri m in at in g ev id en ce is th at t h e o ffi cer di d no t vi ol at e th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t i n a rri vi ng at t he pl ace f ro m whi ch th e ev id en ce was sei zed ).

-8

-The Co ur t he ld th at th e of fic ers ' co nd uc t in Kin g was en ti rel y co ns is te nt wit h

t h e Fo ur th Am en dm en t an d in do in g so

, li ke wis e di sc us se d th e pr iv acy rig ht s o f

oc cu pa nt s who ha ve no ob li ga ti on wha ts oe ve r to res po nd

. Id

. at 18 62

. No m at te r th at

th e of fic ers in Kin g ba ng ed on th e do or an d lo ud ly an no un ced th e i r pr es en ce, th e

Co ur t he ld th at "[w]hen la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers who are no t arm ed wit h a warra nt

kn oc k o n a d o o r

, th ey do no m or e th an an y pr iv at e ci ti zen m ig ht do

. And whe th er

[th e pe rs on at th e do or is an of fic er or a pr i v at e pe rs on ], th e oc cu pa nt ha s no

ob li ga ti on to op en th e do or or to sp eak ." Id

. The oc cu pa nt

, no w al ert ed to th e po li ce

pr es en ce, m ay ev en ch oo se to op en th e do or an d sp eak bu t ne ed no t al lo w th e of fic ers

to en te r an d may r e f

us e to an swe r qu es ti on s at an y ti m e. Id

. Bu t, cau ti on ed th e

Co ur t, if th e oc cu pa nt s ch oo se no t to st an d on th ei r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d "i ns te ad

el ect to at te m

pt to de st ro y ev id en ce," th ey "h av e on ly th em se lv es to bl am e f o r th e

warra nt le ss ex ig en t-c irc um st an ces sea rch th at m ay en su e." Id

.

One of th e th ree fact s rel ie d up on by th e di st ric t co ur t in it s an al y s i s o f t he

ex ig en cy su pp or ti ng th is warra nt le ss en try was Cru z's at te m pt to sh ut th e do or on ce

he be cam e aware of th e po li ce pr es en ce ou ts id e ro om 22 0. Thi s, ho wev er, oc cu rred

aft er th e of

fic ers un su cces sf

ul ly at te m pt ed to un co ns ti tu ti on al ly en te r ro om 22 0 wit h

th e ke y card

, whi ch th ey ad m it co m pr om is ed th ei r po si ti on ou ts id e th e ho te l ro om th at

m or ni ng

. As a res ul t of tha t fail ur e, th e of fic ers bl oc ke d th e pe ep ho le

, kn oc ke d on 4

th e do or

, an d an no un ced "h ou se ke ep in g." Eve n were we to who ll y ig no re th e fai le d

un co ns ti tu ti on al en try th at se t th e st ag e, so -to -s pe ak

, an d pr om pt ed (acc or di ng to th e

As di sc us se d he rei n, th ere is no jus ti fic at io n on th es e fact s fo r th e o ffi cers ' 4

at te m pt to en te r ro om 22 0 wit ho ut a warra nt by w a y o f s w i p i ng th e ke y card

. The

of fic ers ha d no w a r r a n t an d th ere were no ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces su pp or ti ng th is

en try, ha d th e of

fic ers su ccee de d. See W il li am s, 52 1 F.3 d at 90 7- 09 (d is cu ss in g th e

un co ns ti tu ti on al act s of an of fic er th at be ga n to ki ck on a ho te l ro om do or an d at te m pt

en try aft er th e oc cu pa nt sl am m ed th e do or sh ut an d en ga ge d th e de ad bo lt in res po ns e

to th e of fic ers ' kn oc ks

, th us un eq ui vo cal ly in va li da ti ng th e ex is te nc e of an y al le ge d

co ns en t t o s earc h)

.

-9

-of

fic ers ) th is kn oc k an d an no un ce, an d we m ak e no de te rm in at io n reg ard in g whe th er

an y al le ge d ex ig en cy at th at po in t was po li ce-c reat ed

, Cru z's at te m pt to sh ut th e do or

in res po ns e to th e k no ck do es no t s up po rt t he ex ig en cy he re.

Mad e pl ai n in Kin g, of

fic ers cert ai nl y ha ve th e op ti on at al l ti m es t o mer el y

kn oc k on a do or an d se ek en try. In de e d

, K i ng ho ld s th at of fic ers m ig ht ev en

reas on ab ly po un d on a do or an d an no un ce th ei r pr es en ce wit ho ut ru nn in g afo ul of th e

po li ce-c reat ed ex ig en cy

rul e. Id . at 1 86 1. When th ey do so , "th ey

do no m or e th an

an y pr iv at e ci ti zen m ig ht do ." Id

. at 18 62

. Howev er, whe n th e po li ce kn oc k on a

do or bu t th e oc cu pa nt s ch oo se no t to res po nd or sp eak

, or m ay be ev en ch oo se to op en

th e do or an d th en clo se it , or wh en no on e do es an y th in g in cri m in at in g, th e of fic ers

m us t be ar th e co ns eq ue nc es of th e m et ho d of in ve st ig at io n th ey 've ch os en

. A t t h at

po in t, if th ei r m et ho d fai ls

, "'t he in ve st ig at io n wil l ha ve reac he d a co ns pi cu ou sl y lo w

po in t,' an d th e oc cu pa nt s 'wil l ha ve th e ki nd of warn in g th at ev en th e m os t el ab or at e

se cu rit y syste m can no t pr ov id e.'" Id . (qu ot in g Un it ed Sta te s v. Ch am be rs , 3 95 F.3 d

56 3, 57 7 (6 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (Su tt on

, J., di ss en ti ng )). Acco rd in gl y

, cr e d it in g th es e

of fic ers wit h co nd uc ti ng a r u n

- o f

- t h e -m il l at te m

pt to si m pl y kn oc k an d ga in en try,

Cru z was un de r no ob li ga ti on to al lo w th e of fic ers to en te r th e pr em is es at th at po in t

an d was li ke wis e wit hi n hi s bo un ds in hi s at te m pt to cl os e th e do or

. Tha t he di d so

,

wit ho ut m or e, do es no t b ol st er t he cla im th at it was reas on ab le to co nc lu de th at th e

de st ru ct io n o f ev id en ce was im m in en t. 5

In ve st ig at or Ebe rle tes ti fie d t ha t t he do or pa rti al ly cam e op en an d th en aft er 5

an of fic er pr es en te d hi s ba dg e an d an no un ced

, "Po li ce," "t he do or was be in g pu sh ed

sh ut ." If Cru z's reac ti on ha d be en th e ve rb al

, vi su al

, or a u r a l eq ui va le nt of

, "Th e

po li ce are he re, de st ro y th e dr ug s," ou r an al y si s m ay be di ffer en t. See Uni te d St at es

v. Ch am be rs , 3 95 F.3 d 56 3, 57 7 (6 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (Su tt on , J ., d is s e n t in g) (d is cu ss in g

a si tu at io n whe re a wom an cam e to a gl as s do or to an swe r an of fic er's kn oc k,

im m ed ia te ly ret reat ed

, cal li ng ou t th at th ere were po li ce at th e do or

, whi ch pr om pt ed

so un ds of sc ur ry in g in si de th e ab od e). W e do no t su rm is e as to wha t co m pi la ti on of

fact s m ig ht su ffi ce to es ta bl is h ex ig en cy whe n po li ce are at a do or ; we on ly no te th at

it is no t ou t of th e real m of po ss ib il it ie s th a t a r e s i d e n t's reac ti on to th e kn oc k an d

-1 0-Loo ki ng th en at th e rem ai ni ng two ba se s fo r th e di st ric t co ur t ' s a n a l ys is

, th e

ci rcu m st an ces rel ie d up on by th e di st ric t co ur t are no t ex ig en t. "Th e u r g e nc y th at

wou ld jus ti fy al lo win g th e po li ce of fic ers

, rat he r th an a ne ut ral jud ic ia l of fic er, to

dr aw th e reas on ab le in fere nc es su pp or ti ng th is en try is no t p r e s e n t in th es e fact s."

Uni te d St at es v. Du c h i

, 9 06 F.2 d 12 78

, 12 82 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). At th e ti m e th es e

of fic ers at te m

pt ed to en te r ro om 22 0, th ey reas on ab ly be li e v e d t h a t two of th e

oc cu pa nt s of ro om 22 0 po ss es se d he ro in in th ei r sh oe s, an d th e of fic ers be li ev ed th at

th e m en ha d, po ss ib ly, at te m pt ed to el ud e th e po li ce ei th er to fle e th em se lv es

, whi ch

se em s m or e te na bl e, or

, m or e te nu ou sl y

, to de st ro y th e ev id en ce at so m e po in t. Tha t 6

th e of fic ers tra ck ed th e m en al so do es no t im pa ct ou r an al y si s. The re is no ev id en ce

su pp or ti ng th e in fere nc e th at th es e m en kn ew th e po li ce were tra ck in g th em at al l,

whi ch m ig ht le nd cred en ce to th a t l in e of reas on in g as it rel at es to th e im m in en t

de st ru ct i o n of ev id en ce. Als o, kn owl ed ge th at dr ug s were in th e ro om do es no t

su ffi ce t o c on cl ud e th at de st ru ct io n was im m in en t.

Pri or to us in g th e ke y card

, th e of fic ers he ard no so un ds at al l in ro om 22 0– no

de ad bo lt lo ck be in g en ga ge d, no to il et flu sh in g or a sh owe r or fau cet ru nn in g, an d

no sh uf fli ng no is es or ve rb al th reat s em an at in g fro m th e ro om ; no r d i d th e of fic ers

ha ve an y in fo rm at io n th at an oc cu pa nt of ro om 22 0 ha d at te m pt ed to es cap e th ro ug h

a win do w, no r an y in di cat io n th at th es e in di vi du al s were arm ed or da ng ero us

. In fact

,

th e of fic er cl os es t to th e do or he ard on ly th e so un d of so m eo ne ap pr oa ch in g aft er he

ha d kn oc ke d. Acco rd in gl y

, at th e ti m e th es e of fic ers so ug ht to ga in en try by swi pi ng

th e ke y card , t he y ha d no in di cat io n wha ts oe ve r th at th er e was an y act iv it y at al l in

an no un ce m et ho d m ig ht in de ed in fo rm th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce an al y si s.

Tha t th e m en ha d in no way at te m pt ed to de st ro y th e ev id en ce du rin g th e two 6

ho ur s or so en ro ut e to th e Eco no Lod ge le nd s it s e l f mo r e reas on ab ly to th e

co nc lu si on th at th es e m en were at te m pt in g to fle e t h e msel ve s (a ba si s fo r ex ig en cy

no t rel ie d up on b y th e go ve rn m en t on ap pe al ) or th at th ey were at te m pt in g to

rel oc at e– no t d es tro y

–t he he ro in in th ei r po ss es si on

.

-1 1-th e ho te l ro om

, le t al on e an y act iv it y th at m i g h t l ead th em to be li ev e th at th e

oc cu pa nt s in si de m ig ht im m in en tl y de st ro y ev id en ce. Esp eci al ly gi ve n th e fact th at

th e oc cu pa nt s/ su sp ect s ch eck ed in th irt y m in ut es pr io r, an d th ere was no th in g to le ad

th e of fic ers to be li ev e th at th ey ha d si nc e le ft, th e si le nc e in th e ro om ne arl y so li di fie s

th e in fere nc e th at no th in g was go in g on in r o o m 2 2 0

. B u t se e Uni te d St at es v.

Gran ad os

, 59 6 F.3 d 97 0, 97 3- 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (u ph ol di ng warra nt le ss en try in to a

ho te l ro om whe n of

fic ers were aware oc cu pa nt of ro om acco m pa ni ed a kn own dr ug

su pp li er th at ha d jus t be en arre st ed in th e p a r k i n g lo t, of fic ers reas on ab ly be li ev ed

weap on s were in th e ro om an d th at th e oc cu pa nt ha d be en su rv ei ll in g th e pa rk in g lo t

act iv it y

, of

fic ers sm el le d marijua na in th e ha ll way jus t ou ts id e th e ro om

, an d th ey

were co nc ern ed fo r th e sa fe t y of an in fo rm an t's fam il y ); Uni te d St at es v.

Lev eri ng st on

, 39 7 F.3 d 11 12

, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (warra nt le ss en try to ho te l ro om

jus ti fie d by ris k th at ev id en ce wou ld be de st ro y ed w h e n h o te l m an ag em en t

co m pl ai ne d of su sp ic io us dr ug act iv it y in th e ro om

, oc cu pa nt op en ed cu rta in s an d

sa w po li ce an d th en of

fic ers h e a r d s ou nd s of po ts an d pa ns sl am m in g, di sh es

br eak in g, wate r flo win g, an d ga rb ag e d i s p o sa l gr in di ng ); Uni te d St at es v. Mar in

Ci fu en te s, 86 6 F.2 d 98 8, 99 1- 92 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces su pp or te d

warra nt le ss se arch gi ve n po li ce su rv ei ll an ce of m eet in gs be twee n de al ers pr io r to

dr ug de li ve ry

, id en ti fic at io n of a "l oa d" ve hi cl e, su rv ei ll an ce of ph on e cal ls to ho te l

ro om oc cu pa nt fro m kn own dr ug de al ers

, an d th e arre st of two co ho rts

, whi ch wou ld

li ke ly tip off

th e h ot el oc cu pa nt who was k no wn t o b e "s ur ve il la nc e co ns ci ou s" ).

On ap pe al

, th e go ve rn m en t al m os t who ll y rel ie s o n a l in e of cas es in vo lv in g

si tu at io ns whe re th is co ur t ha s fo un d ex ig en cy ba se d up on fact s whe re th e fai lu re of

on e pa rty's ret ur n m ig ht ti p of f an oc cu pa n t t h at a de al ha d go ne "s ou r" or la w

en fo rcem en t was in vo lv ed, thu s pr om pt in g th e im m in en t de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. Fo r

ex am pl e, th e go ve rn m en t ci te s Uni te d St at es v. Kul cs ar, 58 6 F.2 d 12 8 3 ( 8 t h C i r.

19 78 ), whe re of

fic ers arri ve d at a kn own dr ug su pp li er's ho m e aft er arre st in g a dr ug

de al er en ro ut e to th e ho m e, an d sa w a m an fit ti ng th e de sc rip ti on of th e su pp li er lo ok

ou t of a se co nd flo or win do w an d t h e n q u i ck ly m ov e ou t of vi ew. Id

. at 12 85

.

-1 2-Acco rd in gl y

, th e of fic ers be li ev ed th e su pp li er was in si de an d kn ew of th ei r pr es en ce,

a n d t h u s en te red th e ho m e wit ho ut a warra nt an d arre st ed hi m

. Id

. Thi s co ur t

c o n do ne d th e en try, no ti ng th at if th e of fic ers wait ed th e se ve ral ho ur s th e r e c o r d

in di cat ed it wou ld ha ve ta ke n to ob ta in a warra nt

, th e dr ug co ur ie r arre st ed en ro ut e

to th at su pp li er's ho us e wou ld no t ha ve ret ur ne d, an d th e su pp li er wou ld ha ve be en

on no ti ce t ha t s om et hi ng was up

, whi ch wou ld ha ve li ke ly preci pi ta te d t he rem ov al

or de st ru ct io n of the na rco ti cs th erei n. Id

. at 12 87

. The go ve rn m en t offe rs no fact s

of th e so rt i n t hi s ca se

.

In each of th e ot he r cas es ci te d by th e go ve rn m en t, fact s in th e reco rd su pp or te d

th e th eo ry

of e xi ge nc y

ad va nc ed by the go ve rn m en t. In each in st an ce, th e arre st of

a si ng le su sp ect ou ts id e of th e lo cat io n sea rch ed li ke ly wou ld ha ve al ert ed a se co nd

s u s p e c t, who ha d th e ev id en ce an d was wit hi n th e lo cat io n at is su e, th at so m et hi ng

was awry

. In each cas e, it was th us reas on ab le fo r th e of fic ers to co nc lu de th at

di sc ov ery of pu rs ui t was i mm in en t, res ul ti ng in de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce. Uni te d

St at es v. W en tz

, 68 6 F.2d 65 3 (8t h Cir. 19 82 ) (co nd on in g a warra nt le ss en try in to a

ho m e whe re a pr io r dr ug tra ns act io n oc cu rr ed be cau se th e oc cu pa nt s wou ld gr ow

su sp ic io us whe n on e of th e de al ers fai le d to ret ur n, ha vi ng be en arre st ed whi le away

fro m th e ho us e bu t on hi s way ba ck ); Uni te d St at es v. Pal um bo

, 73 5 F.2 d 10 95 (8 th

Ci r. 19 84 ) (s am e, co nc lu di ng th at whe n on e in di vi du al fai le d to ret ur n to a ho te l ro om

as ex pe ct ed

, th e u n d e r c o v e r op erat io n wou ld be rev eal ed

, th us su pp or ti ng th e

ex ig en cy of t he cir cu m st an ces ).

Bas ed up on a rev ie w an d co m pi la ti on of th e p rece de nt on whi ch th e

go ve rn m en t rel ie s, th e cru x of it s arg um en t on ap pe al is th at be cau se th e two m en

who were arre st ed at th e bu s te rm in al were al le ge dl y acco m pa nyin g a th ird m an who

was wit h an ot he r two in th e ho te l ro om

, th e th ree m en in ro om 2 2 0 wou ld be co m e

s u s p ic io us so m eh ow, pr om pt in g th em to im m in en tl y de st ro y th e ev id en ce in th ei r

po ss es si on . Ind eed , t he go ve rn m en t arg ue d to th e di st ric t co ur t t ha t t he "h al lm ark "

of th is cas e is th e se pa rat io n of th e m en arre st ed at th e bu s st op an d th e m an al le ge d

-1 3-to be tra ve li ng wit h th em

. The go ve rn m en t st at es th at "[t ]he fact co -co ns pi rat or s ha d

be en pr ev io us ly arre st ed jus ti fie d th e ex ig en cy ." Yet, th e fact s of th e in st an t cas e do

no t co m po rt wit h th e pr eced en t up on whi ch th e go ve rn men t r e li es

. Thi s reco rd is

de vo id of ev id en ce th at t h es e fiv e m en were sc he du le d to ren de zv ou s at so m e

po in t– i.e., th at th es e th ree m en were "wai ti ng " fo r th e ot he r two

. Nor was th ere an y

ot he r ev id en ce tha t wo ul d l ead a reas on ab le of fic er to con cl ud e th at th e ab se nc e of

,

or de ta in m en t of

, t he two m en arre st ed at th e bu s st op wou ld so m eh ow al ert or "t ip

of f" t he se th ree m en th at so m et hi ng was a fo ot , or t ha t l aw en fo rcem en t was clo se

.

The ev id en ce su pp or ts th e pr op os it io n th at th e of fic ers tra ck ed th es e m en

be cau se th e of

fic ers be li ev ed th e m en were p art of t he co ns pi racy at th e bu s st at io n

an d po ss es se d ad di ti on al co nt rab an d. Bu t fo ll owi ng le ad s in a na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io n

is n o t e n o ug h. The fact s rel ie d up on by th e di st ric t co ur t– th e su sp ect s al le ge d

"el us i o n," th e su sp ect s' ti ck et in fo rm at io n, an d Cru z's at te m pt to cl os e th e do or

–d o

no t es ta bl is h ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

. Of co ur se

, of fic ers ne ed no t al way s ge t a warra nt

ev en if th ey ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to do so

. Kin g, 13 1 S. Ct

. at 18 60 -6 1. Bu t, to effe ct

a warra nt le ss en try i n v io la ti on of a pe rs on 's ri gh ts un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, a

reas on ab le ex cep ti on m

us t ap pl y

. Id

. at 18 56

. Here, vi ewe d o b je c t iv el y

, th e

go ve rn m en t fa il s t o e st ab li sh th at it was reas on ab le fo r th e of fic ers to co nc lu de th at

d e s tru ct io n of ev id en ce was im m in en t, th ereb y es ta bl is hi ng ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ce s

warra nt in g t he for ced en try int o ro om 22 0. 7

Becau se we fin d no ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces he re, we ne ed not de te rm ine w he the r

th e of fic ers in th is cas e "cr eat ed " an y ex ig en cy

, whi ch it se lf wou ld ha ve ne ces sa ril y

pr ecl ud ed th e warra nt le ss en try. Id. at 1 86 2.

A s su m in g th e go ve rn m en t in te nd ed to al so ad va nc e th e su sp ect s' im m in en t 7

es cap e as a jus ti fic at io n fo r th e warra nt le ss en try in to ro om 22 0, whi ch is no t read il y

ap pa ren t fro m th e go ve rn m en t's br ie f or or a l a r g u men t, an y ev id en ce in su pp or t of

th at as se rti on is sc an t an d ou r an al y si s reg ard in g th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce eq ua ll y

ap pl ie s t o d is po se of t ha t cl ai m

.

-1 4-The ev id en ce us ed t o co nv ic t Ram ire z was ga in ed aft er th e il le ga l en try in to

ro om 22 0. The di st ric t co ur t erre d in no t su pp res si ng th is ev id en ce. Acco rd in gl y

, we

rev ers e Ram ire z's co nv ic ti on on co un t two be cau se th e ev id en ce us ed to co nv ic t hi m

was th e fru it of a warran tl es s en try with ou t ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e rev ers e an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t be cau se a reas on ab le po li ce of fic er wou ld be li ev e ex ig en t

ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fie d en te rin g th e ho te l ro om to pr ev en t the de struct io n of ev id en ce.

The ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on al lo ws po li ce of fic ers to en te r a res id en ce

wit ho ut a warra nt in li m it ed ci rcu m st an ces

, in cl ud in g to pr e v e n t th e de st ru ct io n or

rem ov al of ev id en ce, so lo ng as th e po li ce ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to se arch

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Ci sn ero s- Gut ie rrez

, 59 8 F

. 3d 99 7, 10 04 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ To ev al ua te

‘w he th er a warra nt le ss en try was jus ti fie d by ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

, we co ns id er th e

ci rcu m st an ces th at co nf

ro n t e d po li ce at th e ti m e of th e en try.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Lev eri ng st on

, 39 7 F.3 d 11 12

, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). “ W e lo ok ob jecti ve ly

at whe th er a reas on ab le

, ex pe rie nc ed po li ce o f f i c er wou ld be li ev e ev id en ce was in

da ng er of rem ov al or de st ru ct io n.” Id

. W hi le su ch a da ng er of rem ov al or de st ru ct io n

m us t be li ke ly to oc cu r in or de r to jus ti fy th e en try, th e po li ce “ ne ed no t

. . . wait un ti l

th e ev id en ce is in th e pr oc es s of b ei ng de st ro y ed be fo re en te rin g.” Uni te d Stat es v.

Cl em en t, 8 54 F.2d 11 16 , 11 19 (8t h C ir. 1 98 8)

.

Object iv el y vi ewin g th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces in th is cas e, a reas on ab le

,

ex pe rie nc ed po li ce of

fic er wou ld b e l i ev e th e de fen da nt s were li ke ly to de st ro y th e

he ro in whe n Cru z at te m

pt ed to sh ut t h e ho te l ro om do or aft er th e of fic ers kn oc ke d

-1 5-an d id en ti fie d th em se lv es

. Co ns id er wha t th e of fic ers kn ew at th at m om en t: (1 ) two

men w e re arre st ed th at m or ni ng at th e bu s st at io n wit h two ki lo gr am s of he ro i n

hi dd en in th ei r sh oe s; (2 ) on e arre st ee di sc lo se d th at a fel lo w pa ss en ge r (la te r

id en ti fie d as Ram ire z) al so ha d he ro in in hi s sh oe s, an d th at arre st ee ga ve th e po li ce

a de sc rip ti on of th e ot he r pa ss en ge r; (3 ) th ree m en

, in cl ud in g Ram ire z, ha vi ng

pu rch as ed on e-way, cro ss -co un try b u s ti ck et s, ab an do ne d th ei r Cal ifo rn ia to New

Je rs ey bu s tri p an d l eft th e b us st at io n a t ap pr ox im at el y th e sa m e ti m e as th e arre st ;

(4 ) at le as t on e of th e th ree m en

, Cru z, al so ab an do ne d hi s su it cas e on th e bu s; (5 ) th e

th ree m en to ok a cab to a Bes t W es te rn ho te l, ano th er cab to a Co m fo rt Inn

, walk ed

to a M c D o n al d’s res ta ur an t, an d fin al ly to ok a di ffer en t cab to an Eco no Lod ge

,

whe re th ey ch eck ed in ap pr ox im at el y th irt y m in ut es be fo re th e po li ce arri ve d; an d (6 )

in a su rv ei ll an ce vid eo at th e Co m fo rt In n, two of th e m en ap pe ared to st il l ha ve th e

he ro in in th ei r sh oe s be cau se th ey walk ed he av y -fo o t e d or ab no rm al ly fro m th e

Co m fo rt I nn to th e Mc Don al d’s re st au ran t.

In li gh t of t hi s ev id en ce, t he off ic ers ’ be li ef t ha t t he m en m ig ht try to de st ro y

or hi de th e he ro in or ot he r ev id en ce u po n re ach in g t he pri va cy of a ho te l ro om was

ob jecti ve ly jus ti fie d. Face d wit h t h i s b e li ef, th e of fic ers ha d to ch oo se be twee n

wait in g two to fo ur ho ur s fo r a se arch warra nt or tryin g to es ta bl is h co nt act wit h th e

th ree m en th ro ug h so m e ot he r m ean s. It is un ne ces sa ry to de ci de whe th er th is 8

ev id en ce was en ou gh to jus ti fy a warra nt le ss ke y card entr y

, as th e go ve rn m en t arg ue s,

be cau se th e po li ce of

fic ers di d no t su ccee d in th ei r at te m pt ed en try wit h th e ke y card

.

The of fic ers were in no po si ti on to ob ta in a se arch warra nt un ti l th e of fic ers 8

lo cat ed whe re th e de fen da nt s were st ay in g. See Uni te d St at es v. Cu rry

, 91 1 F.2 d 72

, 76 -7 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (“ ‘A se arch warra nt m us t co nt ai n a de sc rip ti on of th e pl ace to

b e se arch ed ’ in or de r to co m pl y wit h th e fo ur th am en dm en t’s pa rti cu l a r i t y

req ui rem en t.” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Alb ert s, 72 1 F.2 d 63 6, 63 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 )).

The two to fo ur ho ur s ne ces sa ry to ob ta in a se arch warra nt fo r th e de fen da nt s’ ho te l

ro om co ul d no t be gi n to ru n un ti l th e de fen da nt s were di sc ov ered an d id en ti fie d at th e

Eco no Lod ge

.

-1 6-I n s t e a d

, th e of fic ers th erea fte r tri ed to es ta bl is h co nt act wit h th e de fen da nt s b y

kn oc ki ng on th e do o r a nd an no un ci ng th ei r pr es en ce whe n Cru z op en ed th e do or

,

whi ch th e of

fic ers cert ai nl y co ul d do wit h or wit ho ut ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces

. Cru z’s

res po ns e of op en in g th e ho te l ro om do or

, se ei ng th e po li ce an d th en pu sh in g th e do or

sh ut (1 ) ob

jecti ve ly su pp or te d th e of fic ers ’ reas on ab le belie f th e de fen da nt s’ ne xt st ep

wou ld be to de st ro y or di sp os e of th e he ro in

, an d (2 ) m ad e im m ed i a t e a ct io n

ne ces sa ry to pre ve nt th e d es tru ct io n o f ev id en ce.

The pa ne l m ajor it y

de te rm in es th ere wer e n o e xi ge nt ci rcu m st an ces , see an te

a t 14 , a rri vi ng at th is co nc lu si on by m in im iz in g th e si gn ifi can ce of th e de fe n d a n t s ’

co nd uc t be fo re ch eck in g in to th ei r ro om

. Fo r ex am pl e, th e pa ne l m ajor it y di sm is se s

as a m ere as su m

pt io n In ve st ig at o r A l a n Eb erl e’s be li ef th e th ree m en le ft th e bu s

st at io n be cau se th ey ob se rv ed th e arre st s of th ei r co -co ns pi rat or s, co nc lu di ng “ th ere

is in su ffi ci en t ob

jecti ve ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s p r e s u mp t i o n.” Id

. at 6- 7 & n.1

. I

di sa gr ee. W hy wo ul d th ree m en tra ve li ng fro m Cal ifo rn ia to New Jer se y wit h pa id

bu s ti ck et s— on e rep orte dly ca rr y ing he ro in is hi s ov ers iz ed sh oe s— ab ru pt ly ab an do n

be fo re da wn th ei r ch os en cro ss -co un try m od e of tra nsp or ta ti on

, an d al so so m e of th ei r

lu gg ag e at th e Om ah a bu s s ta ti on , and us e th ree c ab s t o v is it th ree h ot el s l oc at ed in

di ffer en t ar eas of t he cit y ? Con si de rin g t he co -co ns pi rat or s’ a rres ts oc cu rred at th e

bu s st at io n, cl os e in ti m e to whe n th e de fen da nt s di sa pp eare d, it was reas on ab le

, an d

n o t s p e c u l a ti ve

, fo r th e po li ce of fic ers to de du ce th e th ree m en ob se rv ed th ei r co

co ns pi rat or s’ enc ou nt er wi th po li ce an d d eci de d t o fl ee t he sce ne

.

I al so di sa gr ee wit h th e pa ne l m ajor it y ’s as se rti on “ [t]he re is no e v id en ce

su pp or ti ng th e in fere nc e th at th es e m en kn ew th e p ol ic e were t rack in g t he m at a ll .”

Id

. at 11

. Eve n if on e ig no res th e lo gi cal co nc lu si on th e m en fle d th e st at io n to av oi d

th e f a t e o f th ei r co nf

ed erat es

, th e de fen da nt s ob vi ou sl y kn ew th e po li ce of fic ers

su cces sf ul ly tra ck ed th em by th e ti m e Cru z op en ed th e ho te l do or

. Eve n be fo re th is

po in t, th e de fen da nt s’ c l a n d e s t i ne effo rts in di cat e th ey were tryin g to ev ad e la w

en fo rcem en t. Thre e ho te l vi si ts by t h r e e di ffer en t cab s be fo re da wn is su sp ic io us

-1 7-be ha vi or fo r e v e n t h e mo st di sc ern in g tra ve le r. Thi s co nd uc t su pp or ts at le as t a

reas on ab le su sp ic io n t he de fen da nt s fe ared th e p ol ic e wou ld try to fi nd th em

.

Hav in g rem ov ed th es e ci rcu m st an ces fro m co ns id erat io n, th e pa ne l m ajor it y

reas on s Cru z’s act of cl os in g th e do or —d es cri be d b y I n v e st ig at or St ep he n

Ras go rs he k as an “ at te m

pt [] to sl am th e do or sh ut ”

— “ do es no t su pp or t th e ex ig en cy

he re,” id . a t 10 . Whi le th e pa ne l m ajor it y is co rrec t, “ Cru z was un d e r n o ob li ga ti on

to al lo w th e of

fic ers to en te r th e pr em is es

. . . an d was

. . . wit hi n hi s bo un ds in hi s

at te m pt to c l o s e t h e do or ,” id

., th e pr op rie ty of Cru z’s act is no t di sp os it iv e of th e

is su e at ha nd

.

Cru z’s act of sh ut ti ng th e do or di d no t oc cu r in is ol at io n, bu t was t he

cu lm in at io n of a m or e th an a two -h ou r “ go os e c h as e,” id

. at 2, du rin g whi ch th e

po li ce o bt ai ne d i nf

or m at io n l ead in g t he m to be li ev e th ere was a ris k th e de fen da nt s

wou ld rid th em se lv es of th e he ro in

. Viewe d in co nt ex t, Cru z’s act of cl os in g th e do or

on th e po li ce tra ns fo rm ed th is ris k in to a ne ar cert ai nt y

. By it se lf, cl os in g a do or on

po li ce of fic ers wou ld no t pr o vi de a reas on ab le be li ef ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is t.

Bu t it is en ti rel y pr op er fo r th e of fic ers to co ns id er th e do or cl os in g wit hi n th e to ta li ty

of th e ci rcu m st an ces

. See, e.g

., Uni te d St at es v. de So to

, 88 5 F.2 d 35 4, 36 8 (7 th Ci r.

19 89 ) (fi nd in g e xi ge nt ci rcu m st an ces an d ho ld in g th e th reat of de st ru ct io n of

ev id en ce jus ti fie d a warra nt le ss en try of an ap art m en t whe n th e oc cu pa nt res po nd ed

to a po li ce of

fic er kn oc k an d id en ti fic at io n by “ at te m pt [in g] to sl am th e do or in [th e

po li ce of f i c e r ’s ] f a ce”) ; cf. Ill in oi s v. Gate s, 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 24 3 n.1 3 (1 98 3) (“ In

mak i n g a de te rm in at io n of pr ob ab le cau se th e rel ev an t in qu iry is no t whe th e r

pa rti cu la r co nd uc t is ‘inn oc en t’ or ‘gui lt y ,’ bu t th e de gr ee of sus pi ci on th at at ta ch es

to pa rti c u l a r t y

pe s of no nc riminal act s.”)

. W he n ad de d to th e ex is ti ng su sp ic io us

ci rcu m st an ces , Cru z’s cl os in g t he do or ad di ti on al ly j us ti fie s t he off ic ers ’ en try.

Bec au se ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ex is te d whe n Cru z sh u t t h e ho te l do or

, th e

qu es ti on be co m es whe th er th e p ol ic e of fic ers im pe rm is si bl y crea te d th es e ex ig en t

-1 8-ci rcu m st an ces

, in whi ch cas e th ey can no t jus ti fy th e warra nt le ss se arch

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Duc hi

, 90 6 F.2 d 12 78

, 12 84 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

in st ru ct ed “t h e e x i g en t ci rcu m st an ces ru le jus ti fie s a warra nt le ss se arch whe n th e

co nd uc t of th e po li ce pr eced in g th e ex ig en cy is reas on ab le ” wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Ken tu ck y v. Kin g, 56 3 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 1 S. Ct

. 18 4 9

, 18 58

(2 01 1)

. “ W he re

. . . th e po li ce di d no t crea te th e ex ig en cy by en ga gi ng or th reat en in g

to en ga ge in co nd uc t th at v i o l a t e s th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, warra nt le ss en try to

pr ev en t t he de st ru ct io n o f ev id en ce i s re as on ab le an d t hu s al lo wed .” Id

.

H ere th e po li ce of

fic ers di d no t vi ol at e, no r th reat en to vi ol at e, th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t be fo re kn oc ki ng on th e do or

. The po li ce of fic ers ’ at te m

pt to en te r th e

ro om wit h a ke y card ob ta in ed fro m th e de sk cl erk was

, at wor st

, an at te m pt ed Fo ur th

Am en dm en t vi ol at io n. The of fic ers ’ fai le d en try at te m

pt is im m at eri al be cau se it di d

no t crea te th e ex ig en cy

. The reco rd in di cat es th e of fic ers di d no t he ar an y m ov em en t

in si de th e ho te l ro om aft er th e of fic ers ’ fai le d k e yc a r d en try at te m pt

. And th e fact

Cru z an swe red th e do or sh ows th e bo tc he d ke y card en tr y h a d no effe ct on ev en ts

in si de th e ro om

.

In li gh t of Kin g, th e po li ce of fic ers ’ su bjec ti ve in te nt ha s no be ari ng up on ou r

de ci si on

. See id

. at

__

_, 13 1 S. Ct

. at 18 59 (rejec ti ng a te st th at as ke d whe th er po li ce

of fic ers crea te d ex ig en t c i r c u ms t a nc es in a ba d fai th at te m pt to av oi d ha vi ng to ge t

a wa r r a n t b ecau se th e su bjec ti ve na tu re of su ch a te st is in co ns is te nt wit h typic al

Fo ur th Am en dm en t juri sp ru de nc e). Bec au se th e of fic ers di d no t crea te th e ex ig en cy

by co m m it ti ng or th reat en in g to co m m it a Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n, th e ex ig en tci rcu m st an ces ex cep ti on sh ou ld ap pl y in th is cas e.

A hi gh ly ex pe rie nc ed m ag is tra te jud ge an d di st ric t jud ge

, as well as th is ci rcu it

jud ge

, di d no t pe rcei ve a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n he re. I won de r ho w po li ce of fic ers

on th e fir in g li ne can di st in gu is h th e f i n e le ga l li ne s we dr aw he re to da y

. I wou ld

-1 9-affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Ram ire z’s m ot io n to su pp res s th e he ro in fo un d in

th e h ot el roo m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 0-