Court Opinion

ID: 9842944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:22:30.540106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:21.746007
License: Public Domain

OAKES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The majority opinion holds first that a suppression movant must raise the issue whether officers who arrested him in his home had a warrant for a third person who was not found in the home. Apparently unsatisfied with a record that could have been cured to the majority’s satisfaction by the asking of one simple question of Detective Bisbee,1 the majority then goes on to hold, alternatively or cumulatively, that Ar-boleda “had no legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to an object which he threw outside the apartment with the intention of getting rid of it.” Because I disagree with each of these conclusions, I must dissent.
The majority’s first argument, condemning appellant because he failed to ask whether the officers had an arrest warrant for Gilberto Arboleda, constitutes a novel and unjustifiable procedural ruling. It ap*993parently contains an implied substantive holding that is also unprecedented. It is conceded that, in the district court, appellant “focused his attack on Bisbee’s breaking the window, entering the apartment and arresting Arboleda without a warrant.” Majority op. at 988 (emphasis added). The record below and the briefs on appeal make it equally clear that the Government and the district court consistently viewed this as a case involving a warrantless (but justifiable) entry and arrest. The district court’s order denying suppression, for example, discussed two questions almost exclusively: (1) the propriety of Bisbee’s “intrusion” onto the ledge where the initial plain view took place, under the warrantless entry ease of United States v. Anderson, 552 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1977) (see note 6 infra), and (2) the propriety of the subsequent warrantless entry through the window, on grounds of exigent circumstances.
In sum, the procedural holding of this case appears to be that a defendant in a suppression hearing, even after establishing clearly that he was arrested in his home and that there was no arrest warrant for him or search warrant for the premises, has a further burden of asking whether the arresting officers had an arrest warrant for any third party. On appeal, even if the district court and both parties have treated the case as one involving no warrants, the majority is apparently willing to affirm an otherwise illegal conviction because this question was not asked. This seems to me almost Kafkaesque. This rule would be less unfair if it were in line with general principles of burden of proof in suppression motions, but it is not.
It may be true as a general rule that the moving party in a suppression hearing has the burden of production and persuasion, as the case so relied upon by the majority points out. United States v. De La Fuente, 548 F.2d 528, 533 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 932, 97 S.Ct. 2640, 53 L.Ed.2d 249, 434 U.S. 954, 98 S.Ct. 479, 54 L.Ed.2d 312 (1977). But when a defendant has produced sufficient evidence that he was arrested or subjected to a search without a warrant, the federal rule is that the burden shifts to the government to justify the warrantless arrest or search. Id.; Manuel v. United States, 355 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1966). Here appellant did produce such evidence and one would have thought that the burden then shifted to the government. Yet the court holds him to an additional burden — to ask whether the police were on his premises with a warrant for his brother’s arrest. This is a burden that no case cited by the majority requires.
The burden-shifting in suppression hearings is clearly premised on a recognition of what it is fair to expect each party to prove. As Professor LaFave has stated:
if the search has been conducted incident to a warrant of arrest or search, and the defendant claims that the warrant was issued on less than probable cause, he has the burden of proving this allegation. This position may be based in part upon the “presumptions of regularity which attend the action” of the judicial officer issuing the warrant, but is better explained on the basis that it is in no way unfair to place the burden on the defendant when the government has already set forth in the complaint or affidavit the grounds upon which it rests the legality of its action. But, when the police have acted without a warrant, “it would be impossible for a defendant to prove a lack of probable cause in the abstract. The defendant cannot be expected to prove a lack of some item until he knows on what the government bases its claim of existence.” Thus, the federal courts have placed the burden on the government in such cases.
LaFave, Search and Seizure: “The Course of True Law . . Has Not . Run Smooth,” 1966 U.Ill.L.F. 255, 347-48 (citations omitted). It seems only fair to treat a third-party warrant as one of the many possible defenses that the Government can raise once the defendant has made his normal prima facie showing of an arrest without a warrant for him or an entry without a warrant to search his premises. Why must the defendant, at his peril, anticipate such a justification? To be sure, *994under the majority’s rule, the defendant need only “suggest,” not “prove” the absence of an arrest warrant for someone else. But it is fundamentally unfair to require either action.'
The unfairness is made worse here because of the implied Fourth Amendment substantive holding in the majority opinion. The majority apparently concludes that a warrant of arrest for T will permit the entry of D’s apartment/home absent both probable cause and exigent circumstances. The opinion states:
Although there was no search warrant for Arboleda’s apartment; the police officers were going to the apartment to arrest Gilberto, and if they had an arrest warrant for Gilberto this would have the same legal effect as a search warrant in justifying entry into Arboleda’s home to effect the arrest. See e. g., United States v. Cravero, 545 F.2d 406, 421 (5 Cir. 1976) (on petition for rehearing), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1100, 97 S.Ct. 1123, 51 L.Ed.2d 549, 430 U.S. 983, 97 S.Ct. 1679, 52 L.Ed.2d 377 (1977); United States v. McKinney, 379 F.2d 259, 263 (6 Cir. 1967) (McCree, J.).
Majority op. at 989. However, every recent case in this area, including those cited by the majority, has required at least a showing of “reasonable belief” that the third party was actually in the premises entered. Thus, in its reliance on a presumption of a third-party warrant that wa.s not even suggested by the Government, the majority is either adopting a new rule of total police discretion in this area or depriving appellant of an opportunity to show that the officers had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that his brother was in the apartment that night.
The reasonable-belief requirement, as enunciated in numerous cases, is not a mere formality that is easily satisfied. See United States v. Harper, 550 F.2d 610, 611, 613 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 837, 98 S.Ct. 128, 54 L.Ed.2d 99 (1977) (reliable informant placing suspect at that address that same day); United States v. Cravero, 545 F.2d 406, 421 (5th Cir. 1976) (on rehearing), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1100, 97 S.Ct. 1123, 51 L.Ed.2d 549, 430 U.S. 983, 97 S.Ct. 1679, 52 L.Ed.2d 377 (1977) (officers observed suspects enter residence); Rice v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1280, 1292-93 (8th Cir. 1975), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976) (guesswork or speculation is not enough); United States v. Brown, 467 F.2d 419, 423 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (officers knew residence was suspect’s girlfriend’s and saw person of his basic description enter); United States v. McKinney, 379 F.2d 259, 262-64 (6th Cir. 1967) (tips of several informants). See also United States v. Hammond, 585 F.2d 26, 28 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1978) (suggesting approval for counsel’s concession that police may enter and search for third party as long as they have “probable cause” to believe person was there). Indeed, these cases seem to equate “reasonable belief” with “probable cause,” while allowing the officers to make the judgment without consulting a magistrate. E. g., United States v. Cravero, supra, 545 F.2d at 421; United States v. Brown, supra, 467 F.2d at 424. Here, the only evidence was that the officers “believed [Gilberto Arboleda] may have been in the apartment” because they had heard he sometimes stayed there. There is nothing to indicate that this belief was at all reasonable, let alone that there was probable cause to believe that Gilberto was at his brother’s, the appellant’s, apartment. If this is the proper standard, we should at least remand for some findings.
But I would adopt the higher standard enunciated by the Third Circuit, requiring both a showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect is on the premises, and also exigent circumstances. See Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 502 F.2d 914, 928 (3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 909, 95 U.S. 829, 42 L.Ed.2d 839 (1975); Fisher v. Volz, 496 F.2d 333, 338-39 (3d Cir. 1974). See also Rice v. Wolff, supra, 513 F.2d at 1292 n.7 (it is not yet settled whether exigent circumstances are also required when there is an entry based on probable cause and an arrest warrant for a third party). I agree with the Third Circuit for three rea*995sons. The first is the recognition given by the Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573,100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), to the late Judge Leventhal’s declaration that “ ‘Freedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment.’ ” Id. 445 U.S. at 587, 100 S.Ct. at 1381 (quoting Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (en banc). This recognition carries with it an equation of entry to arrest with entry to search for property. In each case, the interest in preserving home privacy and sanctity is implicated and deserves constitutional protection. See id. 445 U.S. at 587, 100 S.Ct. 1371. See also Rice v. Wolff, supra, 513 F.2d at 1291. As the Court in Payton held, “Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold [of the home] may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” 445 U.S. at 587, 100 S.Ct. at 1381.
The second reason for my agreement with the Third Circuit is related to the first: the underlying policy of the Fourth Amendment opposes indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under general warrants. Id. 445 U.S. at 584-85, 100 S.Ct. 1371. While the probable cause requirement for entries based solely on arrest warrants affords some protection against police discretion, there remains a danger that relatively indiscriminate entries will be justified subsequently by elaborate explanations concerning probable cause. It would be safer to adopt a standard for arrests in the homes of third parties that is analogous to seizures of property: absent exigent circumstances, a warrant must specify the location to be entered in advance. Cf. id. 445 U.S. at 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (discussing, by contrast, entries in the suspect’s own home) (a search warrant standard would afford more protection, but “[i]f 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”).
My third reason is that this circuit apparently went even further in United States v. Reed, 572 F.2d 412, 424 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 283, 58 L.Ed.2d 259 (1978), in requiring, for an arrest in a suspect’s home absent exigent circumstances, “a warrant to arrest a suspect at home” — i. e., the equivalent of a search warrant. See also Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 396 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (en banc) (cited in Reed, supra, 572 F.2d at 424 n.10) (suggesting such a procedure). While the section of Payton just quoted held that a warrant specifying the location to be entered is not required for an entry in a suspect’s home when there is already a general arrest warrant, the Reed case can be viewed as strong support for a search warrant requirement in cases of entries to arrest third parties, absent exigent circumstances.
To sum up, I do not believe we can fairly presume on appeal that there was an arrest warrant, for appellant’s brother Gilberto. Even if we do so, appellant should at minimum have the right to show the absence of reasonable grounds to believe that Gilberto was then in the apartment.2 In addition, I would follow the Third Circuit and require a magistrate’s prior finding of probable cause to believe Gilberto was at that location, since there were no exigent circumstance here.3
*996I pass to the majority’s alternative holding that Arboleda had no legitimate expectation of privacy on the ledge outside his window. This question arises here because Officer Bisbee justifies the seizure of the packet of cocaine on the ledge, which led to all his subsequent actions, under the “plain view” doctrine. It is clear that a premise for the application of this doctrine is that the officer(s) be lawfully on the premises where the plain view takes place. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); United States v. Berenguer, 562 F.2d 206, 210 (2d Cir. 1977). Thus it is important to determine whether the officer could lawfully go out on the ledge as part of an effort to make a warrantless arrest of a supposed occupant of the apartment.4
At one time the answer to this question would have depended on whether the ledge outside appellant’s apartment was “curti-lage,” and hence an area not subject to entry without a warrant, or at least so protected against intrusion as to make a seizure therefrom illegal. See e. g., Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn.L.Rev. 349, 357 (1974). But since Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the concept of a “constitutionally protected area,” Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512, 81 S.Ct. 679, 683, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961), has yielded to the concept of “expectation of privacy,” advanced in Katz and supported anew in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).
The nutshell elaboration of the concept, as expressed in Katz, is that “[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection,” 389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. at 511, whereas “what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected,” id. at 351-52, 88 S.Ct. at 511. In Katz, for example, the Court held that a person in a public telephone booth, visible to the outside world, nevertheless had a protected interest in the secrecy of his spoken words. Id. at 352, 88 S.Ct. at 511. The focus, therefore, is on the *997particular intrusion being made and on whether the individual had a reasonable expectation of protection from that sort of intrusion.
Here, the agent who had the plain view of the cocaine was climbing on a two-foot ledge and peering into the windows of appellant’s apartment. I would hold that an apartment dweller should be protected from such intrusions because of his “reasonable expectation of privacy.” If appellant was so protected, then it was unlawful for the officer to enter the ledge area prior to the making of a warrantless arrest, under Payton v. New York, supra, and United States v. Reed, supra.
The majority says that “[tjhere is no evidence that Arboleda exercised any exclusive control over the ledge, which ran along the entire front of the building and was accessible to other tenants from their windows and the fire escape.” Majority op. at 991. But access from the fire escape, separated from the two-foot-wide ledge by a three-foot fence, over which Detective Bisbee had to climb, is immaterial, because the ledge itself was not a passageway. No one absent an emergency would use such a narrow ledge to walk on — it was certainly not designed for any such use — so it cannot be treated like a hall, stairwell, garage, or the like, as in United States v. Penco, 612 F.2d 19, 24-25 (2d Cir. 1979). And I find no evidence in the record that this ledge was accessible to any other tenants except by way of the fire escape.
Nor is it very important that the general ledge area was visible from th’e' street. A living room in a home may be visible from a distance through a window, but that fact cannot justify a warrantless entry by the police to view the same room up close. The difference between a long-distance view and an actual entry is suggested by the fact that the package of cocaine might never have been seen, or recognized as incriminating evidence, from any vantage point other than the ledge itself.5 It is noteworthy in any event that the police were summoned to the building by someone who, seeing Bisbee creeping along the ledge and his peeping-Tom activities, had reported a burglary in process. Evidently that person thought that the apartment dwellers had an expectation of privacy in respect to the ledge.
In short, when Bisbee climbed over the fence from the fire escape on to the ledge, he intruded on an area in which Arboleda had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If Bisbee had at that time no warrant, there were no exigent circumstances, and there was no consent for him to be there, he had no “legitimate reason for being present,” and the plain view doctrine is inapplicable. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, 403 U.S. at 466,6 91 S.Ct. at 2038.
I would accordingly reverse.

. The question would be “Do you claim you were on the ledge by virtue of any warrant to arrest or search?”

. As added ammunition, the majority notes at footnote 5 that counsel “conceded that the appeal should be dismissed if there was an arrest warrant for Gilberto.” Majority op. at 989. This “concession” not contained in any brief and made in the heat of a short oral argument with the court suggesting new points of law not briefed and made perhaps for hypothetical purposes should not bind appellant.

. Even if we were to reject the Third Circuit rule, the majority’s argument that the entry on the ledge was justified by an arrest warrant for Gilberto is unavailing for yet another reason. In making this argument the majority suggests that, if there were such a warrant, it does not matter whether the ledge is an area where appellant had an expectation of privacy equivalent to ttje inside of his apartment. But if appellant is protected under the Fourth Amendment from entries on to the ledge, see infra, then federal agents making such an entry to effect any arrest must, absent special circumstances, first announce their presence and pur*996pose. See Sabbath v. United States, 391 U.S. 585, 88 S.Ct. 1755, 20 L.Ed.2d 828 (1968); United States v. Mapp, 476 F.2d 67, 74-75 (2d Cir. 1973). It does not matter that the entry was accomplished without the use of force. See Sabbath, supra, 391 U.S. at 590, 88 S.Ct. at 1758. Thus, because there was no announcement here, regardless of any warrant that there may have been for Gilberto, the outcome should depend on whether the entry on the ledge was in fact an intrusion violating a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In response to' this point, the majority argues that the announcement requirement applies only to buildings, whereas the ledge area is more analogous to a yard around a home. Majority op. at n.6. They suggest that I would prevent officers from even approaching the front door of a home without a prior announcement. Id. This analogy is inapposite both because an upper-floor ledge, unlike a yard, is part of a building and because it is not all clear that an officer who approaches a front door for purposes of knocking violates any “reasonable expectation of privacy.” It is the latter factor that controls the applicability of the announcement requirement. See United States v. Fluker, 543 F.2d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1976) (“Thus the critical question before this Court is whether, under the particular circumstances of this case, appellant Young can be said to have had a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ with respect to the corridor area separating the door of his apartment from the outer doorway of the apartment building.”). In Fluker, the court concluded that the requirement did apply to the particular corridor area under consideration.

. Assuming that the majority is following this analysis here, it is not at all clear why its opinion focuses in part on appellant’s “legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to an object which he threw outside the apartment with the objective of getting rid of it.” Majority op. at 991. Leaving aside its entirely unsupported assumption about appellant’s intent, this passage suggests incorrectly that it is helpful here to inquire into his privacy interest in the object seized. Assuming that the package on the ledge was sufficiently “incriminating” to satisfy one of the basic plain view tests, see United States v. Berenguer, 562 F.2d 206, 210 (2d Cir. 1977), appellant cannot claim a privacy interest in the package, see United States v. Ochs, 595 F.2d 1247, 1256-58 (2d Cir. 1979) (Friendly, J.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 955, 100 S.Ct. 435, 62 L.Ed.2d 328 (1979). But the government must go further and show that the particular intrusion by its agent that led to the discovery of this incriminating evidence was itself lawful.

. The undisputed testimony of Agent Bisbee was that appellant threw the “package down toward like underneath the fire escape which is over the ledge itself by several inches.” The package “hit the bar from the fire escape and rested there on the ledge.” There is no indication in the record that the package would have been visible from any public place, including even the fire escape. Even if there were, it is not at all clear that this fact would justify the seizure since the officer was, in my view, intruding on a private sphere when he actually saw the package.
Insofar as the opinion relies on Judge Platt’s statement that Bisbee took the package “from the fire escape,” see Majority op. at 991, such reliance is unjustifiable. I would agree with the majority that if Arboleda had thrown the package on to the fire escape, accessible to all other dwellers on that side of the building, he would be out of luck. But that is not the evidence here.

. United States v. Anderson, 552 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1977), relied on below but not by the majority, is clearly not controlling. In that case, officers knocked on the front door of a house seeking to question a suspect. They got no answer but saw a light on inside and heard a dog barking in back. They went around back “to determine if there was someone with the barking dog,” id. at 1298, and saw incriminating evidence inadvertently through a window. Although the court observed that “private property immediately adjacent to a home is entitled to the same protection against unreasonable search and seizure as the home itself,” it justified this admitted intrusion on the basis of the “agents’ legitimate objective of finding [the suspect] to question him.” Id. at 1299. If the entry on the ledge is an intrusion on a protected area, the Anderson argument is rendered inapplicable here by Payton v. New York, supra, and United States v. Peed, supra.