 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Meyer12/16/1998
a neutral judicial officer or grand jury who had made the decision that the police had probable cause to seize them. Victoria had no such protection.
[ ] The State offers a number of grounds to justify the entry and warrantless search of Victoria's home. It does not, however, rely on the exceptions of consent, exigent circumstances or search pursuant to an arrest. We will address each relevant argument.
[ ] First, the State argues under Payton, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. As to Kuntz, the State claims that since the officers were serving an arrest warrant on Kuntz and there was indication that he might be there, the officers were justified in entering the home under Payton. This argument fails for two reasons, one factual and the other legal. First, the trial court heard all the testimony and concluded that the officers possessed no reliable information as to whether Kuntz lived at this address. More telling, the trial court found, " he application for the search warrant of the Defendant's home in this case is based upon totally false information and said information had no relationship to the residence owned by Victoria Meyer at 502 North Congress." Second, the State's argument is legally deficient as this approach does not provide adequate protection for Victoria.
[ ] The State attempts the same rationale as to Coreau, alleging that under Payton the officers were authorized by the arrest warrant to enter the home because Coreau was living there. Factually, the trial court treated this evidentiary question the same as with Kuntz and found there was no truthful evidence presented which would substantiate Coreau was living at 502 North Congress. In fact, when defense counsel questioned one of the officers about whether Coreau lived in the home, the State objected on the basis of relevance. The objection was sustained by the court and no evidence or testimony was received to indicate Coreau was a resident of the home. Lack of evidence regarding Coreau's living arrangements was a factor that prompted the trial court's ruling. The trial court found Coreau did not live at 502 North Congress and under Steagald, his arrest warrant did not justify entry into Victoria's home. Moreover, as we stated in our analysis above concerning Kuntz, the warrant for Coreau did not adequately protect Victoria's interests.
[ ] In hindsight, the officers who intended to execute the arrest warrant on Kuntz or Coreau at 502 North Congress, would have been prudent to obtain a search warrant for the home in advance, if they had information to create a basis for a search warrant. This is particularly true since they knew the home belonged to Victoria and the residency status of the person they sought to arrest was, at best, questionable. Also, if their information that Kuntz was staying there was reasonable and reliable, they could have easily obtained a warrant, considering Kuntz' reputation for fleeing from law enforcement officials and resisting arrest. Given Kuntz' reputation and the fact officers knew it was Victoria's home, the only means of conducting a legal, reasonable search under these facts was by providing Victoria the protection of a search warrant.
[ ] Finally, the State contends that the officers had legal authority to re-enter Victoria's home after Coreau's arrest for the purpose of performing a protective sweep of the home. See Buie, 494 US 325, 110 SCt 1093, 108 LEd2d 276. The State claims the Fourth Amendment permits a protective sweep if the searching officer possessed a reasonable belief based on spec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|