Opinion ID: 2062916
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the warrantless entry and the exigent circumstances exception

Text: Warrantless, nonconsensual searches or seizures within the home are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., Derrington v. United States, 488 A.2d 1314, 1322 (D.C. 1985) (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 588-89, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1380, 1381, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980)), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1009, 108 S.Ct. 1738, 100 L.Ed.2d 201 (1988). A warrantless, nonconsensual entry into the home to make an arrest may be justified, however, where there are exigent circumstances. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1690, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-50, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2097, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984); Payton, 445 U.S. at 588-590, 100 S.Ct. at 1381-82; Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1323; United States v. Minick, 455 A.2d 874, 876 (D.C.) (en banc), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 831, 104 S.Ct. 111, 78 L.Ed.2d 112 (1983); Dorman v. United States, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 313, 435 F.2d 385 (1970) (en banc). The Supreme Court has not attempted a comprehensive definition of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. The leading cases in which the Court has upheld warrantless, nonconsensual entries into the home to make an arrest remain United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 2409-10, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976), and Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-99, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1645-46, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). In both of these cases, police were in hot pursuit of suspects whom they had probable cause to arrest. [5] But the Court has intimated that exigent circumstances may exist even where police are not in hot pursuit of the suspect, and we, along with numerous other jurisdictions, have so held. [6] In Minick, for instance, we concluded that exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless entry still existed some four-and-a-half hours after a rape, owing to the need to preserve evanescent evidence of the crime. See id., 455 A.2d at 876, 880-82. And in Derrington, we held that a delay as long as twenty-six-and-a-half hours between the crime and the warrantless entry did not necessarily negate the existence of exigent circumstances. See id., 488 A.2d at 1321, 1323-24. In Minick, Derrington, and other cases involving the exigent circumstances exception, we have followed the approach laid out in the en banc opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Dorman. In concluding that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry to apprehend an armed robbery suspect approximately four hours after the crime, the Dorman court considered seven different factors. As later summarized in United States v. Lindsay, 165 U.S.App. D.C. 105, 110, 506 F.2d 166, 171 (1974), the Dorman criteria are: (1) That a grave offense is involved, particularly a crime of violence; (2) the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause; (4) a strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the dwelling; (5) the likelihood of escape if not swiftly apprehended; (6) a peaceful entry as opposed to a breaking; and (7) the time of entry (night or day). See also Minick, 455 A.2d at 876. Not all of the Dorman factors need be present in a given case to justify a warrantless entry. See Gaulmon v. United States, 465 A.2d 847, 850 (D.C.1983). Rather, we evaluate the degree of exigency according to the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Lloyd, 61 Haw. 505, 606 P.2d 913, 918 (1980) and Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798, 329 N.E.2d 717, 720 (1975), cited in Gaulmon, 465 A.2d at 850; see also Lindsay, 165 U.S.App.D.C. at 111, 506 F.2d at 172. The very term `exigency' commands that analysis be shaped by the realities of the situation presented by the record. [7] Gaulmon, 465 A.2d at 850 (quoting United States v. (Vance) Robinson, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 351, 354, 533 F.2d 578, 581 (1975) (en banc), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 956, 96 S.Ct. 1432, 47 L.Ed.2d 362 (1976)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Furthermore, the fact that exigent circumstances may exist at some point during the investigation of a crime will not necessarily justify a warrantless entry if there is a period of unnecessary delay during which the exigency evaporates or the police might have obtained a warrant. See Minick, 455 A.2d at 881 & nn. 11 & 12. Thus, in cases such as this, where a substantial period of time has elapsed between the commission of the crime and the warrantless entry, we have supplemented the Dorman criteria with the following questions concerning the timing of the entry within the context of the investigation as a whole: (1) At what time did the police decide they had sufficient cause to pursue [the suspect]? (2) Did the police act reasonably in waiting that long to do so? (3) By the time the police were ready to move against [the suspect], were there exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry under Dorman ...? (4) If so, did the police enter the premises without unreasonable delay? Minick, 455 A.2d at 876; see also Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1323-24. In reviewing the trial court's suppression order, we are bound to accept the court's factual findings, absent clear error. See, e.g., Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1323; Minick, 455 A.2d at 876. However, [a]ppellate deference to the trial court is limited in this context to findings of fact. Minick, 455 A.2d at 880 n. 6 (citing Brooks v. United States, 367 A.2d 1297, 1302 (D.C. 1976)); see also United States v. Booth, 455 A.2d 1351, 1355 n. 5 (D.C.1983). Where the essential facts are not in dispute, the ultimate determination as to whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry remains a conclusion of law, which we decide de novo. See United States v. Socey, 269 U.S.App.D.C. 453, 459, 846 F.2d 1439, 1445, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 858, 109 S.Ct. 152, 102 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988); ( Vance) Robinson, 174 U.S.App.D.C. at 353, 533 F.2d at 580.
We begin our analysis with the first two questions set forth in Minick: At what time did the police decide they had sufficient cause to pursue the defendant? and Did the police act reasonably in waiting that long to do so? In this case, the trial court did not make any finding as to when the police decided that they had sufficient cause to pursue Harris. However, the record quite clearly indicates that Detective Sitek believed he did not have probable cause to arrest Harris until after one witness had picked out Harris's photo from a photo array, i.e., between 2:45 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on the morning of November 16, 1991. Sitek testified that, before midnight of November 15, he had obtained information that the Mario named by witnesses as the shooter was Mark Harris. While this information was enough to make Harris a suspect, Sitek did not believe that it provided an adequate ground for arresting Harris. Only after one witness had made a positive identification of Harris from the photo array did Sitek assemble an arrest team. We see nothing unreasonable in Sitek's decision not to pursue Harris before obtaining this visual identification. Up until that point, the only evidence linking Harris to the shooting was a mere match of names. Sitek's prudence in waiting to obtain more substantial evidence before attempting an arrest was, if anything, commendable. See Minick, 455 A.2d at 877 (an approach that forces the police to seek a warrant as soon as they arguably have probable cause may result in premature police intrusions upon individual privacy).
We turn now to the third  indeed, the central  question posed by Minick: whether, applying the seven Dorman criteria, there were exigent circumstances sufficient to excuse the failure to seek a warrant at the time the police decided to move against Harris, i.e., between 2:45 and 3:00 a.m. In answering this question, we assume for the sake of argument that Harris had standing to contest the initial entry through the building's locked front door into the apartment building's common hallway [8]  an entry not based in any way on the information Harris's mother later supplied that he was in the apartment. Consequently, we focus our attention on the circumstances of this initial entry, in contrast with the subsequent entry into Harris's apartment after Dovie Dozier had told the police her son was there. On review of all the Dorman criteria, we conclude that exigent circumstances fully justified the initial entry into the building's common hallway and, thereafter, into Harris's apartment. In the first place, our overriding concern in reaching this conclusion is the gravity of the offense and what that offense indicated about the character of the shooter and the danger that he posed to the community. See Brooks, 367 A.2d at 1302 (community security is the basic concern underlying this criterion). This was an exceptional case. The killing was not committed in the course of a robbery or a drug deal gone bad, nor was it prompted by jealousy or revenge. The evidence showed that the shooter had chosen a defenseless victim entirely at random and that the only motivation for the killing was that someone had stolen the shooter's bicycle. Furthermore, both before and after the killing the shooter had threatened to shoot up all of Park Road until he got his bicycle back. Both the killing and the random shots at passing cars made it clear that this threat, however extravagant, was all too real. Thus, the police had reason to believe that they were dealing not just with a murderer, but with a mentally unbalanced individual whose actions would be difficult to predict and who might well kill again if not apprehended. [9] Indeed, given the particular irrationality of the earlier killing, police would have had some basis for fearing that Harris might fire on them or others in order to resist arrest. [10] Second, continuing through the Dorman factors, we note that police had reason to believe that Harris was still armed. While they had no direct evidence that Harris still had a weapon when they decided to undertake the warrantless arrest operation, the police knew that the shooter had been seen brandishing a 9-mm pistol and that no weapon had been recovered from the murder scene. This information was sufficient for them reasonably to conclude that Harris had a gun. Cf. Dorman, 140 U.S.App. D.C. at 321, 435 F.2d at 393 (conclusion that exigent circumstances existed took into account fact that appellant armed while committing crime). Third, the evidence fully supports the motions judge's conclusion that the police had probable cause to make the arrest. One witness had picked out Harris's photo as that of the shooter, and two others had said the shooter was Mario, Harris's apparent nickname. Fourth, while the police did not have any direct proof that Harris was on the premises when they first entered the building, they did know that Harris lived at that address, and the early morning hour suggested that he might likely be asleep there. [11] See id. (concepts of probable cause and reasonableness prima facie justify looking for a man at home after 10 p.m.). Fifth, there was no particular evidence that Harris was likely to escape. Indeed, the record shows that once police arrived on the scene, they covered the rear windows to the apartment, thereby reducing the possibility of any escape. Under the circumstances, however, police also had a strong interest in discovering as soon as possible whether Harris was in fact on the premises, for if he was not, they would have had to search for him elsewhere to ensure the protection of the residents of Park Road. Merely surrounding the building and waiting to see whether Harris eventually emerged was not a workable alternative. Indeed, the fact that the police, in covering all exits, could presumably prevent Harris's escape would not protect residents inside the building from Harris's random shooting. Furthermore, we have often considered under this heading the related danger that evidence of the crime might be hidden or destroyed. See Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1324; Minick, 455 A.2d at 878, 880-81; Brooks, 367 A.2d at 1303. In this case, the longer the police waited, the more likely it was that the suspect would dispose of the murder weapon. Exigency is heightened where the evidence about to be removed is a gun used to kill. Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1324. Sixth, there was conflicting testimony as to whether the initial entry into the building had been forced or not, see supra note 2, and the motions judge was unable to determine which version was most credible. Seventh, the police entered the building in the dead of night, at an hour when it was highly unlikely that anyone would be awake, thereby increasing the impact of the intrusion on the occupants' privacy. We also recognize, however, that the early morning hour might well have increased the time that would have been required to obtain a warrant. See Dorman, 140 U.S.App.D.C. at 321, 435 F.2d at 393. Finally, we must answer the last Minick question: whether the police entered the premises without unreasonable delay once they decided to arrest Harris. See Minick, 455 A.2d at 876. As we noted above, Detective Sitek decided to move against Harris at approximately 2:45 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. By 3:50 or 3:55 a.m., according to Sitek, his arrest team had arrived at 1372 Kenyon Street. Harris's mother testified that the police knocked on her door at 4:00 a.m. Thus, at most one hour and a quarter elapsed between the time that the police decided to make the arrest and the time that they entered the Harris apartment. Although Sitek testified that it was sometimes possible to obtain a warrant within an hour, he also noted that the process could take as long as two or three hours. See Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1324 (detective knew it would take two to three hours to obtain warrant). As there is no authorization for the issuance of telephonic warrants in this jurisdiction, see Minick, 455 A.2d at 878 n. 3, we will not second-guess Detective Sitek's judgment that he would have been unable to obtain a warrant and reach Harris's apartment in the same amount of time, see Derrington, 488 A.2d at 1324 (hour-and-a-quarter delay between identification of suspect and arrest operation not unreasonable). Nor is there any other evidence in the record to suggest that the police delayed their arrest action unreasonably. Considering all of these factors, we conclude that the police acted reasonably in entering the apartment building without a warrant. The police had probable cause to arrest Harris and reason to believe that he was extremely dangerous, unpredictable, and a continuing threat to the community. They also had grounds for thinking that Harris would be armed and some basis for believing that he would be on the premises even before Harris's mother confirmed this suspicion. While there was no evidence that Harris was likely to escape, this was counterbalanced by the strong police interest in determining whether Harris was in fact on the premises, in protecting residents of the apartment building, and in preserving evidence. Finally, there is no evidence that the police delayed unreasonably in executing their plan once they had decided to arrest Harris. It is true that the entry took place late at night and may have been forced, but we conclude that the need to apprehend a murder suspect whom police had reason to fear might kill again randomly, without warning, outweighed the intrusiveness of the forced entry into the building. We conclude that exigent circumstances also justified the entry into Harris's apartment. At that point, in addition to the information described above, the police had also learned from Harris's mother that Harris was indeed present on the premises. Moreover, the police entry into the apartment was relatively peaceful. Although the motions judge found that this entry was nonconsensual, the record also shows that the police did not break into the apartment. These factors, taken together with the circumstances already outlined, rendered the warrantless entry into Harris's apartment lawful. A nonconsensual, warrantless entry and arrest in a private residence at 4:00 a.m. is the kind of police action that most Americans would consider typical of a totalitarian state; it should be sanctioned in our society only in the most extreme circumstances. We believe, however, that such exceptional circumstances existed in this case, given the severity and random nature of the crime and the realistic possibility that the criminal would kill again if not apprehended immediately. Accordingly, we conclude that Harris's arrest in his home was lawful and that the gun clip found on his person is admissible against him as evidence properly seized in a search incident to arrest. See United States v. (Willie) Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 476-77, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973) (in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a `reasonable' search under that Amendment); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2039-40, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.).