Court Opinion

ID: 9493563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:11:36.633208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:54.253771
License: Public Domain

SILER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm the decision of the district court in denying the motion to suppress.
As related by the majority, the officers had information that Walter Lewis and Edward Julian stored and sold narcotics out of their home in Cleveland. The informant further advised the officers that Julian would be making a large drug delivery on December 21. This was corroborated when the officers saw the Jeep pull into the driveway of the residence and Julian got into the Jeep and left, proceeding down the street where he engaged in the crack transaction with Antonio Clark. Therefore, at that point, officers had probable cause, or at least a reasonable suspicion, that there were more drugs in the house, as the informant had said that the narcotics were stored and sold out of the house, and they had not seen Lewis, the other suspect. Therefore, they had the right to at least knock on the door of the house to see if there was anyone else, in particular, Lewis, inside.
The majority suggests that from United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1512 (6th Cir.1988), the officers could not make a warrantless entry, unless they believed that there were third parties inside the dwelling who might be involved in the destruction of evidence. Nevertheless, there is no illegal search when an officer knocks on the door of a house. The door was opened by a child who allowed them to come into the front room. Unlike the officers in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 482, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963), the police here identified themselves at the door and were lawfully admitted. When they immediately saw Lewis rush up the steps, they had probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify a war-rantless search, at least to the extent of following Lewis up the steps before they found the crack in open view.
The majority asserts that without a reasonable belief that there were third parties in the house, the conclusion that the evidence was in danger of imminent destruction is unfounded. However, there was no trespass when officers were in the front room as Lewis dashed up the stairs. I would find at that point that they knew there was a third party in the house who could destroy any other narcotics, because they knew Lewis resided there and they had not yet seen him inside or outside the house. See United States v. Gaitanr-Acevedo, 148 F.3d 577, 585-86 (6th Cir.1998).