Court Opinion

ID: 9758327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:22:16.167843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:49.559183
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Justice CUNNINGHAM.
I concur in the result but disagree with the majority’s analysis of the validity of Mrs. Pate’s consent. An inquiry into the issue of consent is unnecessary because here, unlike in Bumper v. North Carolina, Sergeant Lily possessed a valid arrest warrant at the time he entered the Pate home. “[F]or 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.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1388, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). A “reasonable belief is established by looking at common sense factors and evaluating the totality of the circumstances.” United *336States v. Pruitt, 458 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir.2006). Common sense alone provides an officer a sufficient basis to believe that a suspect might be present in his own residence. Furthermore, when Mrs. Pate made the bare assertion that Appellant was not home, Officer Lilly expressed his desire to check the apartment “himself’, thus evidencing his belief that Appellant might be present. Absent some indication on the record that Officer Lilly had reason to believe that Appellant was not present, other than Mrs. Pate’s assertion, the arrest warrant provided sufficient authority to enter the home. Moreover, the scope of Officer Lilly’s search did not exceed that permitted to effectuate an in-home arrest pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).