Opinion ID: 1981146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The May 1995 Arrest Warrant for Mr. Bullock

Text: Mr. Dockery contends that the trial court erred by admitting or using evidence that the police discovered during the execution of an arrest warrant for Mr. Bullock at Mr. Dockery's Southern Avenue residence on May 24, 1995. [8] Evidence revealed that Mr. Bullock also lived there. He argues that the police officers could not have reasonably believed that Mr. Bullock resided at his apartment, and that they were required to have a search warrant in addition to an arrest warrant in order to lawfully take notice of the shotgun that was subsequently found. Conversely, the government claims that Officer Calhoun, the investigating officer, observed Mr. Bullock moving out of his previous residence; that a reliable source told her that Mr. Bullock was residing with Mr. Dockery and described the car that the two men were seen riding in together; and that she later confirmed information from her source when she saw that car near Mr. Dockery's apartment complex. Therefore, the government argues, the officer had reason to believe Mr. Bullock resided at that apartment. `Our standard of review for a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress tangible evidence requires that the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be viewed in favor of sustaining the trial court's ruling.' United States v. Watson, 697 A.2d 36, 38 (D.C.1997) (quoting Holt v. United States, 675 A.2d 474, 478 (D.C.1996)). While factual findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.  Id. This court view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the ... [g]overnment [ ] and consider [s] both evidence offered at the suppression hearing and admitted at trial. United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 411 (5th Cir.1998). With respect to Fourth Amendment legal principles, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe [he] is within. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Furthermore, in order to authorize entry into a person's home to execute a warrant for his arrest, the [police] officer's belief that the residence to be entered is the home of the person named in the warrant need not be supported by `probable cause.' Rather, the proper inquiry is whether there is a reasonable belief that the suspect resides at the place to be entered to execute [the] warrant, and whether the officers have reason to believe that the suspect is present. United States v. Lovelock, 170 F.3d 339, 343 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Lauter, 57 F.3d 212, 215 (2d Cir.1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212, 216 (8th Cir.1996). Here, the trial court properly framed the question as to whether the police reasonably believed Mr. Bullock lived at the Southern Avenue residence with Mr. Dockery and was present. Officer Calhoun testified that she went to a residence along 64th Avenue in Riverdale after initially being told that Mr. Bullock lived there. But after interview[ing] some of the neighbors, she learned that he was moving out. Id. Around May 22, 1995 another source told her that if he wasn't [at the Riverdale residence] he would be with Mr. Dockery, Id. at 17. Officer Calhoun then proceeded to Mr. Dockery's apartment complex at 4165 Southern Avenue. Id. While there, she interviewed several employees including the resident manager and ... a worker. Id. She learned that although Mr. Bullock's name was not on the lease for the Southern Avenue residence, a worker to whom she spoke and showed a picture of Mr. Bullock acknowledged that Mr. Dockery was living [in the apartment] ... [along with] [Mr.] Bullock. Id. at 18. The worker told [her] that he had seen ... Mr. Bullock, the night before with Mr. Dockery, leaving the building, driving off. Id. at 19. Furthermore, that particular source told her what kind of car to look out for. Id. And, before executing the warrant on May 24th, she looked outside the [apartment] and the car was there. Id. We conclude that the totality of the facts and circumstances within Officer Calhoun's knowledge ..., warranted a reasonable belief that [Mr. Bullock] reside[d] at [4165 Southern Avenue]... [and that the officer had] reason to believe that [Mr. Bullock was] present. Lovelock, supra, 170 F.3d at 343 (quoting Lauter, supra, 57 F.3d at 215); see also Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.1999); United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530, 1535 (11th Cir.1995). Thus, the entry into the premises at 4165 Southern Avenue was not illegal.