Warrantless Home Arrests and Police Liability Under Utah Law

I. INTRODUCTION Well-intentioned law enforcement officers in Utah beware. The forced entry statute found in section 77-7-8 of the Utah Code violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The plain language of this statute misleads peace officers as to the scope of their authority to make warrantless home arrests. Since 1980, three decisions by the United States Supreme Court have established constitutional protections against warrantless home arrests,1 yet section 77-7-8 continues to authorize peace officers to force entry into a building to make a warrantless arrest, even if the building in question is a dwelling and even if there are no exigent circumstances2 present. Consequently, police officers in the field, relying on section 77-7-8, might misunderstand the scope of their authority and commit unnecessary, unknowing violations of the Fourth Amendment by making unjustified warrantless home arrests. A decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit suggests that officers who act in good faith and precisely according to the rules articulated by the Utah Legislature might find themselves subject to civil liability without the protections of qualified immunity, making them personally liable for any damages.3 To explore this potential police liability trap, Part II reviews three modern United States Supreme Court cases that govern warrantless arrests within the home. Part III identifies the conflict between Utah law and current Fourth Amendment case law and analyzes the possible outcomes of a constitutional challenge to IMAGE FORMULA3 section 77-7-8. Part III also examines the practical problems that may result from officers exercising authority under the current version of section 77-7-8. In Part IV, this Note proposes a revision of Utah's forced entry statute and provides a model that incorporates modern search and seizure jurisprudence. Part V gives a brief conclusion. II. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WARRANTLESS HOME ARRESTS The Fourth Amendment provides protection from unreasonable governmental intrusion: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.4 Since 1980, three United States Supreme Court decisions have shaped constitutional law regarding warrantless home arrests and have defined the level of protection that the Fourth Amendment provides a residence. Collectively, the cases impose significant limitations upon law enforcement officers seeking to make arrests within dwellings. Payton v. New York5 was the first of these cases to be decided. A. Payton v. New York In Payton v. New York, the United States Supreme Court held that, absent exigent circumstances, the protections of the Fourth Amendment prohibit police from entering a suspect's dwelling to make a warrantless arrest.6 In making its ruling, the Court examined two cases in which police officers had probable cause to make felony arrests but entered the suspects' homes without first obtaining arrest warrants. In the first case, officers forced entry into the apartment of suspected murderer Theodore Payton. Having developed probable cause, officers arrived at the residence with the intent to arrest Payton without a warrant for the killing of a gas station manager, IMAGE FORMULA9 which took place two days earlier.7 Upon arrival, the officers discovered lights on and music playing, but no one would answer the door.8 The officers forced entry, and they discovered that the apartment was unoccupied. Although unable to arrest Payton, officers seized as evidence an ammunition casing observed in plain view. …