Opinion ID: 6929844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Securing Evidence

Text: We have long recognized that the imminent destruction of evidence may constitute an exigency excusing the failure to procure a warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Socey, 846 F.2d 1439, 1444 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 858, 109 S.Ct. 152, 102 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988); United States v. Johnson, 802 F.2d 1459, 1462 (D.C.Cir.1986); United States v. McEachin, 670 F.2d 1139, 1144 (D.C.Cir.1981); United States v. Allison, 639 F.2d 792, 794 (D.C.Cir.1980). This risk is particularly weighty where narcotics are involved, for it is “commonly known that narcotics can be easily and quickly destroyed.” Johnson, 802 F.2d at 1462. Nonetheless, we have also held that “the police must have an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the destruction of evidence is imminent.” Socey, 846 F.2d at 1446; United States v. Timberlake, 896 F.2d 592, 596 (D.C.Cir.1990). In Socey, we evaluated a claim that the arrest of one defendant outside the premises created a risk that evidence of narcotics would be destroyed by his confederates inside. We held that “a police officer can show an objectively reasonable belief that contraband is being, or will be, destroyed within a home if he can show 1) a reasonable belief that third persons are inside a private dwelling and 2) a reasonable belief that these third persons are aware of an investigatory stop or arrest of a confederate outside the premises, so that they might see a need to destroy evidence.” 846 F.2d at 1445. Using the approach suggested in Socey, we find that the destruction of evidence contention in this case must be analyzed from two different angles. First, the police could try to justify their conduct on the grounds that Dawkins’ comrades in the narcotics trade may have been within Apartment 104 threatening the imminent destruction of the evidence referred to by McEachin. However, this argument, premised on the Socey scenario, clearly does not give rise to a finding of exigency on the facts of this case. The police had neither information suggesting that any third party was in Apartment 104 nor evidence tending to indicate that any such (hypothetical) third party had reason to know of their initial encounter with Dawkins. Second, police could have anticipated that Dawkins himself, alerted by his first encounter with the police, may have snuck back to Apartment 104 after the officers’ initial visit to Apartment 301 in order to dispense with the evidence. However, after extensive consideration of the facts of this case, we conclude that the police could not reasonably have believed that Dawkins was in Apartment 104. McEachin’s tip placed Dawkins at Apartment 301 minutes before the police arrived. “Boyd,” the man police found there, fit McEachin’s description in several salient respects. As McEaehin predicted, he had in his pocket a key which, Detective Zattau discovered later, fit the lock at Apartment 104. At the moment the key fit the lock, it seems almost inevitable that the police officers should have known, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Dawkins and “Boyd” were one and the same, and, hence, that Dawkins could not possibly be in Apartment 104. Moreover, the fact that more than one police officer remained, however briefly, at Apartment 301 precludes any tidy inference that Dawkins/“Boyd” may have raced the hundred yards to get to Apartment 104 before the separate contingent of police arrived there. Coupled with the absence of any telltale sounds of destruction emanating from within Apartment 104, we cannot identify circumstances that rose to any level of exigency in this case so as to excuse the absence of a warrant. See Timberlake, 896 F.2d at 596; cf. United States v. Bonner, 874 F.2d 822, 825 (D.C.Cir.1989) (exigency exists where, inter alia, “officers heard sounds consistent with ... destruction of the object of the search”); United States v. Frierson, 299 F.2d 763 (7th Cir.1962) (exigency exists where officers heard “get rid of the stuff; get rid of the spoon”). Nor does the presence of dangerous firearms in Apartment 104 alter our disposition of this particular case. Although we have consistently credited “[t]he unique dangers presented to law officers and law-abiding citizens by firearms,” United States v. Clipper, 973 F.2d 944, 950 (D.C.Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1025, 122 L.Ed.2d 171 (1993), and have commented that an exigency may be “heightened” by the presence of a deadly weapon, United States v. McEachin, 670 F.2d 1139, 1144 (D.C.Cir.1981), we have never found exigency solely on the basis that the police have information that firearms are located in a private home. 8 Rather, in the cases relied upon by the government for the proposition that the presence of guns factors into the exigency balance, the police possessed independent knowledge that the destruction of evidence was imminent or very likely—knowledge wholly lacking in this case. See, e.g., McEachin, 670 F.2d at 1144 (finding exigency where confidential informant told police that suspect was going to dispose of gun in his apartment); United States v. Allison, 639 F.2d 792, 794 (D.C.Cir.1980) (finding exigency where co-conspirator warned police of “immediate threat” that defendant would destroy the evidence); United States v. McKinney, 477 F.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.Cir.1973) (finding exigency where sawed-off shotgun seen in “transient hotel room” of nonresident of the District).