Opinion ID: 2642050
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exigent Circumstances and Qualified Immunity

Text: Mr. Beattie contends that in addition to probable cause, the officers needed either a warrant or exigent circumstances to enter his hotel room to arrest him there.4 In a public place, officers may arrest an individual without a warrant or exigent circumstances, so long as they have probable cause to make the arrest. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 423–24 (1976). But if officers seek to arrest an individual violation of the statute, suggests the arrest was unsupported by probable cause. The only difference between a felony and a misdemeanor violation of the statute concerns whether a person under the age of 16 was present. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5513(b). According to Mr. Beattie’s complaint, Officer Smith told him after the arrest that “since there were children in the area, it will be a felony offense.” Aplt. App. at 129 ¶ 129. The complaint does not allege that Officer Smith’s statement concerning the presence of children was false. Given this, Mr. Beattie fails to show that the arrest for a felony, although only a misdemeanor was ultimately charged, violated his constitutional rights. Finally, Mr. Beattie argues that Officer Smith’s asking Ms. James, a member of the tribal security staff, whether she wanted to press charges delegated the probable cause determination to Ms. James. Whether Ms. James wanted to press charges has nothing to do with probable cause, and the argument therefore fails to state a plausible claim. See Slater, 719 F.3d at 1196 (stating plausibility standard). 4 “A motel room may be considered a ‘dwelling’ for purposes of the validity of a warrantless arrest.” United States v. Wicks, 995 F.2d 964, 969 (10th Cir. 1993). - 16 - within his dwelling, they must also have the right to enter the home to effectuate the arrest. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980). Officers may gain a right of entry in several ways. First, they may obtain an arrest warrant. Id. Absent a warrant, the officers may enter a dwelling if they have probable cause for the arrest and exigent circumstances exist to justify the entry. Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 638 (2002) (“[P]olice officers need either a warrant or probable cause plus exigent circumstances in order to make a lawful entry into a home.”). Finally, even if the officers have neither a warrant, nor probable cause and exigent circumstances, “[a]n individual may also consent to a warrantless intrusion into his home.” Hogan v. Cunningham, 722 F.3d 725, 732 (5th Cir. 2013). Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Beattie voluntarily permitted the officers to enter his room. Mr. Beattie points to no clearly-established law holding that where valid consent has been given to the officer’s entry into the suspect’s dwelling, the officer must also show that probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the arrest that took place there. Nor have we found such authority. See, e.g., United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260, 1265 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Consent can justify an entry into a home, regardless of whether there is probable cause.”); id. at 1269 (“Payton holds only that “the Fourth Amendment . . . prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest. [Where] the officers’ entry . . . was consensual, Payton does not apply.”). Cf. United States v. Morris, 977 F.2d 677, 688 (1st Cir. 1992) - 17 - (“[A] determination of whether probable cause or exigent circumstances existed will be unnecessary if a defendant voluntarily consents to [a warrantless] search.”). Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as to this portion of Mr. Beattie’s claim as well.