Opinion ID: 494124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Warrantless Search and Arrest

Text: 9 The defendants aver that the district court erred in denying their motion to suppress the seized money and cocaine. See United States v. Osorio de Santiago, 626 F.Supp. 329 (D.P.R.1986). We disagree. 10 Under Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 211, 87 S.Ct. 424, 427, 17 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966), the initial entry by the undercover agent for purposes of conducting the drug transaction was consensual. Defendants concede the validity of this entry, but contest the subsequent entry by fellow law enforcement officers and the ensuing warrantless search and arrests. 11 We uphold the subsequent entry and arrests on the basis of exigent circumstances. After the agent and the informer handed over their shoes to defendants, at which point probable cause was clearly established, defendant Ariel was moving towards the door in order to leave and purchase other shoes for the agent and informer. If Ariel had exited the hotel room, he would have discovered the federal agents waiting in the hallway. This discovery would inevitably have created the risk that the three defendants would attempt to flee or to destroy the contraband. We also note the agents' lack of knowledge as to whether the defendants were armed and the risk to other hotel guests. Although we are mindful of the Supreme Court's instruction to exercise hesitation in finding exigent circumstances, especially when warrantless arrests in the home are at issue, Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 2098, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984), in light of the factors in this case, we believe there was such a compelling necessity for immediate action as [would] not brook the delay of obtaining a warrant. United States v. Adams, 621 F.2d 41, 44 (1st Cir.1980). 12 Appellants contend that the agents could have obtained an arrest warrant prior to arranging the controlled delivery. However, it is not clear that probable cause was established at that time. Furthermore, even if there was probable cause prior to the arrests, this does not negate the rise of exigent circumstances. See, e.g., Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 596, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2472, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974) (The exigency may arise at any time, and the fact that the police might have obtained a warrant earlier does not negate the possibility of a current situation's necessitating prompt police action.); United States v. Cresta, 825 F.2d 538 (1st Cir.1987) (warrantless arrest and search in hotel room valid because of exigent circumstances even though probable cause existed some time prior to entry); United States v. Mitchell, 538 F.2d 1230, 1233 (5th Cir.1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 945, 97 S.Ct. 1578, 51 L.Ed.2d 792 (1977) (although agents had ample time after probable cause arose to obtain a warrant, the failure to do so does not preclude a finding of exigent circumstances); but cf. Niro v. United States, 388 F.2d 535, 539-40 (1st Cir.1968) (unless there are countervailing factors, a fully anticipated search and seizure cannot be justified by exigent circumstances). 13 Upon arresting the appellants, the agents seized incriminating evidence consisting of the shoes containing the cocaine and defendant Eugenia's purse containing approximately $8,000 cash. The appellants have never challenged the agents' seizure of these items. Although not raised on appeal, at the suppression hearing before the district court, the appellants challenged the propriety of a post-arrest inventory search of the purse at the United States Customs House. We conclude that the inventory search was lawful. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983).