Opinion ID: 842352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the constructive entry doctrine

Text: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: 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. [U.S. Const. Am. IV.] In Michigan, the police do not generally need a warrant to arrest a person when they have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony. People v. Johnson, 431 Mich. 683, 690-691, 431 N.W.2d 825 (1988). MCL 764.15(1) lists the circumstances under which a police officer may effectuate an arrest without a warrant. [2] However, a warrant is generally required to arrest a person in his or her home. In Payton v. New York , [3] the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home without a warrant in order to make a routine felony arrest. Payton, 445 U.S. 573 at 576, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639. The Court stated that `physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.' Id. at 585, 100 S.Ct. 1371, quoting United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). The Court further recognized that it is a `basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Payton, 445 U.S. at 587, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (citation omitted). The Court specifically drew the line between searches and seizures that do not violate the Fourth Amendment and those that do. The line was drawn at the entrance to the home: The Fourth Amendment protects the individual's privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual's homea zone that finds its roots in clear and specific constitutional terms: The right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . shall not be violated. That language unequivocally establishes the proposition that [at] the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. [ Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961).] In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant. [ Id. at 589-590, 81 S.Ct. 679.] Numerous courts have interpreted Payton as prohibiting not only physical entries into a person's home to effectuate an arrest without a warrant, but constructive entries as well. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Sharrar v. Felsing , [4] found a constructive entry where there was a clear show of physical force and assertion of authority. In United States v. Morgan, [5] the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that either a constructive entry or a direct entry into the home would constitute an arrest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Al-Azzawy, [6] found a constructive entry where the suspect was not free to leave, his movement was restricted, and the officers' show of force and authority was overwhelming. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Maez, [7] found that Payton is violated where there is such a show of force that a defendant comes out of a home under coercion and submits to being taken into custody. [8] The constructive entry doctrine is a valid legal doctrine that protects individual liberties and safeguards individuals' Fourth Amendment rights. It respects the United States Supreme Court's decision in Payton, which drew a firm line at the entrance to the house. Payton, 445 U.S. at 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371. Equally important, the constructive entry doctrine recognizes that officers cannot do through coercive tactics and the abuse of authority what they cannot do physically: they cannot enter someone's home to effectuate an arrest without a warrant. As noted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, [a] contrary rule would undermine the constitutional precepts emphasized in Payton.  United States v. Morgan, 743 F.2d 1158, 1166-67 (C.A.6, 1984). Application of the constructive entry doctrine inherently requires a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the police conduct constituted a constructive entry. A majority of this Court concludes that the conduct in this case did not constitute a constructive entry. It arrives at this conclusion by noting that the facts are not as egregious as those in other cases. Here, the police did not use floodlights and bullhorns [9] or draw their weapons and place defendant in fear of being shot. [10] However, unlike the majority, I believe that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights may be violated even though the police conduct was less egregious than that in the most extreme factual settings. The decision should be made on the basis of the degree of coerciveness of the police conduct. The most relevant question is whether a reasonable person would feel compelled to leave the house. [11] In this case, the trial court believed defendant's version of the events. Defendant explained that, at the time in question, he had been confined to his apartment on house arrest and was on a tether. The police knocked on his door. He opened it, and the police asked him to come out. According to defendant, he replied that he could not come out because he was on a tether. It is undisputed that there was a repeated verbal exchange between the police and defendant in which the police told defendant to come out and he declined to do so. Defendant eventually emerged from the apartment because there was an officer to [his] right [and] something about it [made him] feel threatened. Defendant testified that he came out in what he described as an exited atmosphere, [12] that he did not leave his apartment voluntarily, and that he felt coerced by the officers. Given these facts, I would conclude that the police made a constructive entry. The uniformed police officers created an excited and coercive atmosphere. They refused to acknowledge or respect defendant's repeated refusals to leave his apartment. They made it clear that they would not take no for an answer and would continue to ask defendant to step out despite his repeated refusals to do so. Moreover, before the police arrived at defendant's door, they knew that he was on house arrest with a tether. When they called out to him, defendant told them that he could not leave his apartment because he was on a tether. At the suppression hearing, the trial court believed defendant's testimony and noted that defendant knew the meets [sic] and bounds of the tether system. Moreover, when questioned by the trial court, an officer admitted that it was possible that defendant's tether had been set up so that he could not leave the apartment. The fact that defendant was on a tether further supports the finding that there was a constructive entry. Defendant was under a court order to remain in his apartment, and yet the police officers repeatedly demanded that he leave it. Under this situation, a reasonable person would have felt coerced to leave his or her residence. [13] The majority contends that the facts of this case are similar to those in United States v. Thomas, [14] in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that there was no constructive entry. In that case, officers knocked on the door of the defendant's residence. Id. at 276. When the defendant opened the door, the officers told him that the investigators wanted to talk to him and asked him to come out of the residence. Id. Without objection, the defendant came out of the residence, and the police arrested him. Id. There are several important distinctions between the facts in Thomas and those in the instant case. In Thomas, the police made only one request of the defendant, who was not under house arrest, to come out of the residence. In the instant case, the police knew that defendant was under house arrest and refused to accept his repeated refusals to leave his residence. Unlike in Thomas, the instant facts do not reveal a calm single request to leave the residence. Rather, they reveal excited, repeated demands for a person under house arrest to leave his residence. The majority attempts also to distinguish the instant case from Boykin v. Van Buren Twp., 479 F.3d 444 (C.A.6, 2007). In Boykin, the police came to the defendant's house and stated, among other things, `I'm trying to avoid coming into your home and dragging you out of your home. . . . And we're going to do that if you don't listen to us.' Id. at 450 n. 2. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opined that, had the issue been briefed, the Court would have been inclined to find a constructive entry into the defendant's home in violation of Payton. Id. In attempting to distinguish the instant facts from those of Boykin, the majority misses a crucial part of the Boykin commentary. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit recognized that coercive statements alone could invoke the constructive entry doctrine. This recognition necessarily belies the majority's inference that only overt physical acts, such as using a bullhorn or brandishing machine guns, could constitute a constructive entry. It should be noted, also, that the majority opinion risks establishing bad public policy. It discourages people from opening their door to police officers. Essentially, it signals to the public that it is acceptable for the police to ignore a person's repeated refusals to leave his or her home and sanctuary. Hence, people might conclude that they should not open their doors when they see police officers on the other side. This Court should encourage, not discourage, the public to assist the police in their lawful investigations. [15]