Opinion ID: 412072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Validity of Search

Text: 18 The defendants next argue that the law enforcement agents were required to obtain a search warrant before entering the motel room to make the arrests. Because there was no search warrant, the defendants contend that all of the evidence seized during both the protective sweep and the full-blown search should be suppressed. The Supreme Court, however, twice has expressly declined to require such a procedure under the Fourth Amendment. Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 221, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 1652, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602-03, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1388, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The Payton Court considered whether police could enter a suspect's dwelling to effect an arrest without either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. The Court concluded that warrantless, nonconsensual entry to make a routine felony arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court refused to require a search warrant, however, holding that an arrest warrant sufficed. 19 An intrusion into a personal residence to make an arrest implicates two constitutional interests: the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure, and the right to be free from an unreasonable search of the residence. See Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. at 215-16, 101 S.Ct. at 1649. When the suspect is in his own home, a determination of probable cause to arrest that suspect made by a detached magistrate is a sufficient shield from unreasonable searches. The Payton Court emphasized this, stating: 20 It is true that an arrest warrant requirement may afford less protection than a search warrant requirement, but it will suffice to interpose the magistrate's determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen. If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen's participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reasonable to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, 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 the suspect is within. 21 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. at 602-03, 100 S.Ct. at 1388. The defendants here shared the motel room registered to Defendant Jones. Although the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures extend generally to guests in motel rooms, Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 893, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964), those protections were not threatened because the agents relied upon existing arrest warrants when they approached room 150. 7 22 The defendants also argue that the law enforcement agents should have obtained a telephonic search warrant pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)(2). 8 We cannot agree that a search warrant was constitutionally compelled in this case. We doubt that Agent McGivney's actions upon arresting the defendants constituted a search at all. 9 In any case, the protective sweep conducted here certainly was within the boundaries of constitutionally valid searches established in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2039-2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), and its progeny. The police may search adjoining rooms to look for possibly dangerous persons. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 299, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1646, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); United States v. Agapito, 620 F.2d 324, 335-36 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Miller, 449 F.2d 974, 977-78 (D.C.Cir.1971). See Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763 n. 8, 89 S.Ct. at 2040 n. 8 (affirming Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), which cited Warden v. Hayden as one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirements.) 23 In Miller, the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a conviction obtained in part on evidence discovered during a warrantless search of a five-room dentist's office, because the search was necessary to assure the officers' safety. The same reasoning applies here. The agents did not know who, other than Defendant Nisbet and one other person, was in room 150. Moreover, they had good reason to believe that anyone else who may have been in the room would be hostile to them. 24 Although we find that a search warrant was not necessary, we are disturbed by the government's policy of not obtaining a telephonic search warrant as authorized by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. See supra note 8. The agents had ample time between first sighting Defendant Nisbet and the arrest to telephone a federal magistrate in Indianapolis for a search warrant. Moreover, probable cause to search the motel room existed at least as early as 3:30 p.m., when the agents completed a positive identification of Nisbet. We note also that Agent King reported seeing drug paraphernalia after he entered room 150 at 1:30 p.m. Had the agents secured a telephonic search warrant before arresting Nisbet and Jones, the issues surrounding a warrantless search would have been defeated before they ever arose. That is precisely the desired effect of the rule. Law enforcement agents should be encouraged to seek search warrants by whatever means, whenever possible. 25 In response to inquiries from this panel, the government's lawyer explained that the office of the United States Attorney in Indiana had a general policy to avoid using telephonic search warrants. This policy contravenes the express purpose of the telephonic search warrant rule. 26 Even when a search warrant would not be required to enter a place to search for a person, a procedure for obtaining a warrant should be available so that law enforcement officers will be encouraged to resort to the preferred alternative of acquiring an objective predetermination of probable cause, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), in this instance, that the person sought is at the place to be searched. 27 Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c)(2) advisory committee note (1979). See also S.Rep. No. 354, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 10, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 527, 534; United States v. McEachin, 670 F.2d 1139 (D.C.Cir.1981).