Opinion ID: 1733200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: arrest without a warrant and attendant search and seizure

Text: A pretrial hearing was held on the legality of the defendant's arrest (with the resulting seizure of articles to be suppressed, if the defendant were successful). The police had no arrest or search warrants. After checking one address for the defendant that was incorrect, the police located him at 271 Watson at about 2:45 a.m. The owner of the building opened the defendant's apartment. The police saw someone sleeping in the bed in the one-room apartment, and the owner identified the person as the defendant. The police awakened the defendant at gunpoint and determined that he had no weapon. Since he generally fit the description of complainant's assailant, the police arrested him. A fingernail file, $12 in cash, and a black coat were taken and later admitted at trial. Statements made by the defendant to the police after his arrest were used to impeach him at trial. The parties agree that the arrest of defendant without a warrant in his abode was illegal unless the circumstances surrounding it were exigent. Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 589; 100 S Ct 1371; 63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980), citing United States v Reed, 572 F2d 412, 423 (CA 2, 1978). The essence of the exigency which would excuse the failure to obtain a warrant is the existence of circumstances known to the police which prevent them from taking the time to obtain a warrant because to do so would thwart the arrest. Commonwealth v Huffman, 385 Mass 122, ___ 430 NE2d 1190, 1192 (1982); Latzer, Police Entries to Arrest  Payton v New York, 17 Crim L B 156, 163 (1981). The prosecutor contends that there were exigent circumstances present at the time the officers effectuated the arrest of defendant after having entered his room without a warrant. In support of this contention, the prosecutor recites the following facts: defendant was believed to be armed with a dangerous weapon, defendant was likely to escape, and a violent crime had been committed. However, we conclude that the facts do not support a finding of such exigent circumstances as would obviate the need for an arrest warrant. In Niro v United States, 388 F2d 535, 540 (CA 1, 1968), the first circuit held that although failure to obtain a readily available warrant is not necessarily fatal to a search or seizure made concurrent with a fully anticipated arrest, it is fatal where there are no countervailing factors. The Niro Court stated: Proceeding without a warrant is not to be justified, as the government suggests here, by the fact that by the time the officers act, dispatch is necessary to avoid flight or injury to person or property. Haste does not become necessary in the present sense if the need for it has been brought about by deliberate and unreasonable delay. This would allow the exception to swallow the principle. In United States v Houle, 603 F2d 1297 (CA 8, 1979), the police received a complaint that the defendant had made threats after he had been drinking to shoot people. Upon their arrival at the scene, at 1:50 a.m., the officers heard two shots from the defendant's house. The police dispatcher received a phone call from the defendant threatening to shoot any officer who came into his yard and demanding that the officers leave the area or return in the morning. The police delayed acting until 6:40 a.m., and then went to the defendant's house to arrest him. When they arrived they saw through a broken window that the defendant was sleeping on a bed. One of the officers saw a rifle and reached in through the window and seized it, whereupon the other officers kicked down the door and arrested the defendant. The police had made no attempt during the intervening four hours to obtain an arrest warrant. The Houle Court, in an opinion antecedent to Payton, held that the Fourth Amendment did not sanction entries into a home without a warrant for the purpose of an arrest absent exigent circumstances. In rejecting the prosecution's claim that exigent circumstances existed, the Court stated: This is not a case involving hot pursuit. The officers' deliberate four hour delay from 1:50 a.m. to 6:30 a.m., indicates that the officers had no reason to believe, and did not believe, that the defendant would attempt to escape or destroy the evidence in his possession. It is undisputed that the officers made no attempt to obtain a search or arrest warrant during that period of delay. Any exigency that arose by virtue of the presence of the rifle near the bed could have been anticipated by the officers and does not excuse their earlier failure to obtain a warrant. 603 F2d 1300. In the case at bar, there was over a five-hour delay between the time the police were given a physical description of the complainant's assailant and when they arrested defendant without a warrant. The prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever as to why a warrant was not sought during this interval. Inasmuch as the prosecutor has not proffered any countervailing circumstances which justify the failure to secure a warrant, we hold that the police did not act reasonably in entering defendant's room without a warrant, arresting him, and seizing evidence. Therefore, defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the entry without a warrant should have been granted.