Opinion ID: 3064488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motion to Suppress — Warrantless Arrest

Text: Brobst argues that the warrantless arrest was illegal on two theories: (1) the search warrant did not cure the need for an arrest warrant and (2) there was no probable cause and exigent circumstances to arrest based upon Montana law. We review whether officers had probable cause for a warrantless arrest de novo. United States v. Juvenile (RRA-A), 229 F.3d 737, 742 (9th Cir. 2000). In general, police officers may not enter a person’s home to arrest him without obtaining an arrest warrant. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90 (1980). The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[T]he Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be crossed without a war2858 UNITED STATES v. BROBST rant.” Payton, 445 U.S. at 590. The warrant requirement, however, has exceptions. In order for an officer to effect a warrantless arrest, the officer needs probable cause as defined by federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to make a warrantless arrest. See United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 2004); Moore, 128 S. Ct. at 1607. Probable cause requires more than bare suspicion but need not be based on evidence sufficient to support a conviction, nor even a showing that the officer’s belief is more likely true than false. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949). In United States v. Moreno, 891 F.2d 247 (9th Cir. 1989), we held that once incriminating evidence is discovered by officers serving a valid search warrant, that evidence can provide probable cause for a warrantless arrest. See id. at 249 (officers were justified in making an investigatory stop when defendant approached own house, then drove away, while officers were executing search warrant). [16] Here, a valid search warrant existed allowing the officer to enter Brobst’s home. While the warrant did not authorize Brobst’s arrest, incriminating evidence was found by the officers prior to Brobst’s arrest. That incriminating evidence provided Detective Yonkin the necessary probable cause to arrest him. Because we hold that Montana law does not apply to the lawfulness of Brobst’s arrest, see Section II, we need not address Brobst’s arguments regarding the application of Montana law.