United States v. Route - 104 F.3d 59 (5th Cir. 1997)

Rule:

Officers' assessment need not in fact be correct, rather, they need only reasonably believe that the suspect resides at the dwelling to be searched and is currently present at the dwelling. The proper inquiry is whether there is a reasonable belief that the suspect resides at the place to be entered and whether the officers have reason to believe that the suspect is present. 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. The police may enter a home with an arrest warrant only if they have probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant resides there.

Facts:

The police obtained a valid arrest warrant for both defendant Michael Route and Crossley to be executed at Route’s residence. When the police arrived at the residence, they found Route backing his car out of the driveway and arrested him immediately. Route was charged with participating in a scheme to defraud various businesses and financial institutions. Route filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of the arrest warrant, contending that after he refused to consent to a search of his home, the detective took the house keys from his pocket and proceeded to enter the house. Crossley cooperated with authorities in exchange for leniency, and the government proceeded to trial against Route. A jury convicted Route on all thirteen counts, and the court sentenced him to thirteen concurrent ninety-six-month terms of imprisonment and thirteen concurrent five-year terms of supervised release, restitution in the amount of $ 74,490, and a special assessment of $ 650. On appeal, Route contended that the district court erred in failing to grant his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of an arrest warrant at his residence.

Issue:

Did the district court err in failing to grant defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized at the latter’s home, thereby warranting the reversal of defendant’s conviction? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction. The court noted that a valid arrest warrant carried with it the implicit but limited authority to enter the residence of the person named in the warrant in order to execute the warrant, where there was "reason to believe" that the suspect was within. In this case, the evidence seized from defendant's home was not illegally obtained because the arresting officer's entry into defendant's home was proper where he had a reasonable belief that a codefendant was inside of defendant's home.