Opinion ID: 533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 3907 East 12th Terrace

Text: Alfonso and Gerardo contend that the warrantless entry of 3907 East 12th Terrrace was supported by neither exigent circumstances nor probable cause. Police officers may not enter or search a residence without a warrant unless the entry is justified by exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The exception justifies immediate police action without obtaining a warrant if lives are threatened, a suspect's escape is imminent, or evidence is about to be destroyed. United States v. Ball, 90 F.3d 260, 263 (8th Cir.1996). To evaluate whether a warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances, we consider the circumstances that confronted police at the time of the entry. United States v. Leveringston, 397 F.3d 1112, 1116 (8th Cir.2005). We look objectively at whether a reasonable, experienced police officer would believe evidence was in danger of removal or destruction. See United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1021 (8th Cir. 2003). Not only must the government establish that an exigency existed, but also that there was probable cause to search the residence. United States v. Munoz, 894 F.2d 292, 296 (8th Cir.1990). In Leveringston, we held that even though the suspect had been arrested outside the hotel room, the fact that the water and garbage disposal continued to run inside the room gave the police grounds to believe there was a fair probability that evidence of drug traffickinga serious felony offensewould be lost if they did not make immediate entry. 397 F.3d at 1116. We have held in a number of cases that police officers are justified in making an exigent-circumstances entry when, after going to a residence with evidence that an individual was involved in a drug transaction, they knock and identify themselves and then witness an individual retreat or conduct himself in a way that suggests the destruction of evidence. See Ball, 90 F.3d at 262-63 (police approached home where two men were on the porch, one was holding a weapon and then fled into the residence); Munoz, 894 F.2d at 296 (individual ran upstairs after the police knocked and identified themselves); United States v. Clement, 854 F.2d 1116, 1119 (8th Cir. 1988) (officers received no response after knocking, saw someone approach the door, look through the peephole and retreat, and heard a scrambling noise). In this case, we believe that an objectively reasonable police officer, knowing the information supplied by Hernandez-Pena and observing Alfonso's and Gerardo's conduct, would conclude that there was danger of removal or destruction of evidence of a crime. Hernandez-Pena had told officers that the brothers possessed large quantities of illegal narcotics and several firearms and that they served as enforcers for the drug trafficking organization. After arriving at the house and announcing themselves, the officers witnessed evasive behavior. Gerardo and Alfonso consulted one another, following which Gerardo's feigned confusion appeared to be a delaying tactic during which Alfonso took several plastic bags to the kitchen sink and disposed of their contents. Taken together these circumstances justified the officers' warrantless entry. Additionally, under the totality of the circumstances, probable cause existed: a reasonable person would believe that there was a fair probability that drugs or evidence of drug trafficking would be found in the residence. See Kleinholz v. United States, 339 F.3d 674, 676 (8th Cir.2003).
Gerardo argues that the evidence found at 3907 East 12th Terrace should be suppressed because the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy during the knock-and-talk when they positioned themselves near the rear and sides of the house. Although the Fourth Amendment's protection extends to the curtilage surrounding a home, United States v. Weston, 443 F.3d 661, 666 (8th Cir.2006), no Fourth Amendment search occurs when officers restrict their movements to those areas generally made accessible to visitorssuch as driveways, walkways, or similar passageways. United States v. Reed, 733 F.2d 492, 501 (8th Cir.1984). It is unclear from the record whether the officers were actually within the house's curtilage. Assuming, however, that Gerardo is correct that officers impermissibly entered the curtilage of his home during the knock-and-talk, suppression is not required, because the officers at the front of the house independently observed the apparent destruction of evidence and entered the home under exigent circumstances. In the majority of cases cited by Gerardo in which evidence was suppressed, the officers at the rear of a home obtained evidence while positioned there the officers observed illicit behavior, someone threw evidence from the home or left the home. [4] See, e.g., Hobson v. United States, 226 F.2d 890, 894 (8th Cir.1955) (suppressing package thrown into backyard). In this case, suppression is inappropriate because discovery of the evidence was unrelated to any misconduct. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (recognizing the issue for suppression is whether the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint).
Gerardo also argues that the police impermissibly manufactured the exigent circumstances. Although it is true that the situations of urgency protected by this exception cannot be created by police officers, United States v. Duchi, 906 F.2d 1278, 1284 (8th Cir.1990), Gerardo's argument fails under our cases that address police-created exigencies. We have explained that in some sense the police always create the exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entries and arrests. Id. But the police do not necessarily act impermissibly any time they create an exigency in a strict causal sense. See Ball, 90 F.3d at 264 (rejecting a claim that officers manufactured an exigency when they approached a porch and an individual fled into the residence). We must determine the reasonableness and propriety of the investigative tactics that generated the exigency. Duchi, 906 F.2d at 1284. In Duchi, police were alerted to an undeliverable package that contained two bricks of cocaine. Id. at 1279. The police replaced one of the bricks with a book and allowed the package to be picked up from the shipping company. Id. at 1280. After the suspect returned home with the parcel, the police entered the residence without a warrant because of a fear that the evidence would be destroyed. Id. We held that the police impermissibly manufactured the exigency, because [t]he heightened danger of destruction upon discovery was ... reasonably foreseeable; it was in fact, the replacement strategy's probable result. Id. at 1285. Similarly, in United States v. Johnson, a postal inspector intercepted a package containing drugs, altered its contents, made a controlled delivery, and then entered the residence without a warrant because of fear that the evidence would be destroyed once the recipient realized the package had been intercepted. 12 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir.1993). We held that by substituting another substance for a portion of the drugs, the officials created, or at least greatly increased, the risk that evidence would be destroyed. Id. at 765. Had they not altered the package's contents, there would have been little or no danger of evidence being destroyed before they obtained the search warrant. Id. Conversely, in a situation in which the police used an investigative technique that did not foreseeably increase the likelihood of an exigency, we rejected the proposition that the police impermissibly manufactured the exigency. See United States v. Williams, 521 F.3d 902, 908 (8th Cir.2008) (holding that the police did not manufacture the exigency that led to the warrantless entry of the motel room when the officer knocked on the door, and heard what he thought was the slide of a handgun and the rustling of blinds). Police officers regularly rely on a knock-and-talk as an investigative strategy when they do not have enough evidence to obtain a search warrant. The knock-and-talk that was conducted in this case was a reasonable and proper investigative strategy that did not foreseeably increase the likelihood of the destruction of evidence. While the destruction of evidence is a possible result of a knock-and-talk, other likely results include the grant of consent to a search, the demand for a warrant for police entry, or a consensual conversation with the resident outside the home. Accordingly, we conclude that the police did not impermissibly manufacture the exigency in this case.
Alfonso and Gerardo contend that the protective sweep of the East 12th Terrace home constituted an illegal search because it was not made in connection with an arrest. They maintain that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest the brothers until they confirmed that Alfonso had been disposing of drugs upon the officers' arrival. We conclude that the protective sweep was permissible under the principles outlined in Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). In that case, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to conduct a protective sweep of the premises if there are articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. Id. at 334, 110 S.Ct. 1093. We have declined to extend Buie to a search incident to the service of a protection order when officers had no articulable facts suggesting that another individual might be in the home, ready to launch an attack. United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2005). But see id. (Murphy, J., concurring) (explaining that this holding does not necessarily foreclose all protective sweeps when officers are serving a protection order). Given the circumstances, we hold that a reasonable officer could conclude that it was necessary for his safety to secure the premises before obtaining a warrant. There was a reasonable possibility that other individuals were in the home, posing a danger to the officers. The officers had been told that the brothers possessed large quantities of illegal narcotics and several firearms and that they served as enforcers for the drug trafficking organization. They had observed Gerardo's evasive behavior, and Alfonso's actions were consistent with that of someone destroying evidence. Accordingly, the protective sweep was permissible.
We conclude that Alfonso's and Gerardo's remaining arguments are without merit. Having determined that the entry and protective sweep were legal, the information included in the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not illegally obtained and it provided the requisite probable cause to support the search warrant. Alfonso's argument that his post- Miranda statements were tainted by an illegal search also fails because the search of the East 12th Terrace residence was lawful.