Also known as: entries without warrant · warrantless entry
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A police action of entering a private dwelling without first obtaining a judicial warrant, permitted only when a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies such as hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or exigent circumstances involving imminent harm.
Emma Erickson called police after hearing screams and seeing blood through her neighbor's window. Officers arrived, observed the disorder and injury, and entered without a warrant to check for a victim in need of aid. The entry was lawful because the visible circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe immediate assistance was required.
Emanuel Escobar stabbed a victim in view of officers and fled into his own residence. Officers followed immediately without pausing for a warrant and entered to apprehend him. The continuous chase supplied the exigent circumstance that permitted the warrantless entry.
In January 1970, New York detectives conducted a two-day investigation into the murder of a gas station manager. On January 14 they assembled evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Theodore Payton had committed the crime. On the morning of January 15 at about 7:30 a.m., six officers went to Payton’s apartment in the Bronx without having obtained a warrant. Although light and music emanated from inside, there was no response to their knock on the metal door. They summoned emergency assistance and approximately thirty minutes later used crowbars to break open the door and enter. No one was present, but the officers seized a .30-caliber shell casing that lay in plain view and that was later admitted into evidence at Payton’s murder trial. In a companion case, on March 14, 1974, police officers acting with probable cause went to the Queens house where Obie Riddick was living to arrest him for two armed robberies that had occurred in 1971. When Riddick’s young son opened the door the officers saw Riddick sitting in bed. They entered the house, placed him under arrest, and before permitting him to dress opened a chest of drawers two feet from the bed. They discovered narcotics and related paraphernalia that were later admitted at his trial on narcotics charges. In both cases the New York trial courts upheld the warrantless entries and plain-view seizures under provisions of the New York Code of Criminal Procedure that authorized such actions, and the Appellate Divisions affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals, in a single 4-3 opinion, affirmed the convictions of both Payton and Riddick. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases, which were argued together.
View caseEmily Ellis was arrested outside her garage on probable cause for a felony. Officers lawfully entered the open garage to complete the arrest and observed incriminating evidence in plain view on a workbench. The entry itself was justified by the arrest, allowing seizure of the visible items.
In January 1964, fourteen-year-old Pamela Mason disappeared from her home in Manchester, New Hampshire, during a heavy snowstorm after receiving a telephone call about a babysitting job. Her body was discovered eight days later beside a major highway, prompting a massive police investigation. On January 28, officers visited Edward Coolidge at his home after learning he had been absent on the night of the disappearance. Coolidge produced three guns for inspection and agreed to take a lie-detector test. On February 2, while Coolidge was at the police station undergoing the test, two plainclothes officers arrived at his house and spoke with his wife. Mrs. Coolidge provided four guns belonging to her husband and some clothing she believed he might have worn on the night in question. Coolidge was held overnight on an unrelated charge but released the next day. Over the following two and a half weeks, the State accumulated evidence implicating Coolidge. On February 19, the results of the investigation were presented at a meeting between the police officers working on the case and the State Attorney General, who had personally taken charge of all police activities relating to the murder, and was later to serve as chief prosecutor at the trial. Coolidge was arrested at his home that day. His 1951 Pontiac automobile parked in the driveway was seized and towed to the police station two and a half hours later. The Pontiac was searched and vacuumed on February 21, again in January 1965, and a third time in April 1965. At Coolidge's subsequent jury trial for murder, vacuum sweepings from the car were introduced into evidence. One of the guns taken from the home was also introduced. Vacuum sweepings from the clothing were introduced into evidence. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after upholding the admissibility of the evidence, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseEmmett Egan's home was entered after officers received reliable information that an armed suspect inside was about to destroy evidence and flee. Officers forced entry without a warrant because the totality of circumstances created an immediate exigency. The entry was upheld under the exigent-circumstances exception.
Police officers obtained a search warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker T. Hudson in Michigan. Upon arriving to execute the warrant, the officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. They waited only three to five seconds before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson's home. Inside the residence, officers discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson's pocket, and a loaded gun lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. He moved to suppress all the inculpatory evidence, arguing that the officers' premature entry violated his rights. The Michigan trial court granted the motion to suppress. On interlocutory review, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Hudson was subsequently convicted of the possession charges. He renewed his suppression claim on appeal, but the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected it and affirmed the conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the case.
View caseEduardo Enriquez was arrested inside his home without a warrant. Officers took him to the station where he gave a statement. The statement remained admissible even though the initial home entry violated Payton because the violation did not taint the later custodial statement.
On January 11, 1984, New York City police found the body of Ms. Thelma Staton murdered in her apartment. Facts gave the officers probable cause to believe that respondent Bernard Harris had killed her. On January 16, 1984, three police officers went to Harris' apartment to take him into custody without first obtaining an arrest warrant. When the police arrived, they knocked on the door while displaying their guns and badges, and Harris let them enter the apartment. Once inside, the officers read Harris his Miranda rights under Miranda v. Arizona, which he acknowledged understanding, and he agreed to answer their questions, reportedly admitting that he had killed Ms. Staton. Harris was then arrested and taken to the station house, where he was again informed of his Miranda rights and signed a written inculpatory statement. The police subsequently read Harris the Miranda warnings a third time and videotaped an incriminating interview between Harris and a district attorney, even though Harris had indicated that he wanted to end the interrogation. The trial court suppressed Harris' first and third statements, rulings the State does not challenge, but concluded that the second statement made at the station house was admissible. Following a bench trial, Harris was convicted of second-degree murder, and the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. A divided New York Court of Appeals reversed, 72 N. Y. 2d 614, 532 N. E. 2d 1229 (1988). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the admissibility of the station house statement. 490 U. S. 1018 (1989).
View caseErika Echevarria's neighbor reported an unconscious person inside the home. Officers entered without a warrant after confirming the report through the window and finding the occupant in medical distress. The entry was justified by the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement.
On March 5, 1976, Patricia McDonough was robbed in Baltimore, Maryland. She gave the police a description of the robber and of a 1975 Monte Carlo automobile she had observed near the scene of the crime. After the robbery, McDonough began receiving threatening and obscene phone calls from a man identifying himself as the robber. On one occasion, the caller asked that she step out on her front porch, and she saw the 1975 Monte Carlo moving slowly past her home. On March 16, police spotted a man who met McDonough's description driving a 1975 Monte Carlo in her neighborhood. By tracing the license plate number, police learned that the car was registered in the name of petitioner Michael Lee Smith. The next day, the telephone company, at police request, installed a pen register at its central offices to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home without obtaining a warrant or court order. The pen register revealed that on March 17 a call was placed from petitioner's home to McDonough's phone. On the basis of this and other evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search petitioner's residence. The search revealed that a page in petitioner's phone book was turned down to the name and number of Patricia McDonough, which was seized. Petitioner was arrested, and McDonough identified him as the robber in a lineup on March 19. Petitioner was indicted for robbery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. By pretrial motion, he sought to suppress all fruits derived from the pen register. The trial court denied the suppression motion. Petitioner waived a jury, and the case was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts. The pen register tape and the phone book were admitted into evidence against him. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to six years. He appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, but the Court of Appeals of Maryland issued a writ of certiorari to the intermediate court and affirmed the judgment of conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseYes. When officers are in immediate and continuous pursuit of a person who has just committed a violent felony, they may enter a dwelling without a warrant to apprehend the suspect and ensure safety. The search inside may extend as far as reasonably necessary to locate the suspect and neutralize threats.
Supporting sources
No. The Fourth Amendment does not impose a least-intrusive-means requirement. If exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry, officers need not first attempt to surround the home and wait for a warrant.
Supporting sources
No. The community caretaking doctrine does not authorize warrantless home entries. Officers must rely on a recognized exception such as exigent circumstances or emergency aid.
Supporting sources
No. Officers must evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an exigency such as imminent harm or evidence destruction exists.
Supporting sources
…outside the home following a Payton violation, the principal incentive to obey Payton still obtains: the police know that a warrantless entry will lead to the suppression of any evidence found, or statements taken, inside the home"). I concede that United States v. Ramirez , 523 U. S. 65, offers the plurality its last best…