United States v. Magluta - 44 F.3d 1530 (11th Cir. 1995)

Rule:

In order for law enforcement officials to enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant for a resident of the premises, the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the law enforcement agents, when viewed in the totality, must warrant a reasonable belief that the location to be searched is the suspect's dwelling, and that the suspect is within the residence at the time of entry. 

Facts:

Salvador Magluta filed a motion to suppress certain evidence seized during the search of his home and guest house by federal and state law enforcement agents who had gained entry into his residence for the purpose of executing outstanding arrest warrants. The magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to believe that Magluta resided at the location, but that the marshals did not have probable cause or reason to believe Magluta was at the residence at the time of the search. The district court accepted the magistrate judge's findings, and granted Magluta’s motion to suppress. The United States government appealed.

Issue:

Did the district court err in granting Magluta's motion to suppress evidence obtained by federal and state law enforcement agents after entry into a residence for the purpose of executing outstanding arrest warrants?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and remanded. The court held that the magistrate court's conclusion was a legal determination and not a factual finding, and therefore de novo review was appropriate. The court concluded that, in light of the evidence available to the marshals at the time of the entry, the facts supported their reasonable belief that Magluta was home at the time of the entry. Thus, the marshals were entitled to engage in a protective sweep of the premises and the evidence discovered in plain view during the sweep was properly used to secure a search warrant for the premises.