NCJ Number
150172
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 63 Issue: 9 Dated: (September 1994) Pages: 27-32
Date Published
1994
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This article examines U.S. Supreme Court decisions that pertain to warrantless entries into a private residence to effect an arrest.
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in "Payton" and "Steagald" represent a logical extension of the traditional requirement for judicial approval before government forces can intrude into the private domain of a person's dwelling. Absent emergency circumstances or consent, an arrest warrant is required to enter the residence of the suspect to effect the resident's arrest, although a search warrant is necessary to justify an entry into a third party's residence. Because there is no warrant requirement for making felony arrests in public places, law enforcement officers are free to devise arrest plans that avoid entries into private dwellings, and thereby, avoiding the need to acquire warrants. In devising such plans, however, officers must be aware that legal risks may yet arise, even though no actual, physical entry into a residence occurs, and should understand that steps can be taken to minimize those risks. There should be relatively little risk of knocking on the suspect's door and awaiting a response. If the suspect opens the door under these circumstances, the court cases show that there should be no problem in announcing the arrest. If someone other than the suspect answers the door, there is no legal risk in asking that person to request that the suspect come to the door. The most risky tactic is to demand that the suspect either come to the door or come outside. Although the law is still unsettled in this area, there is a significant risk that a court will view such action as a "constructive entry." 29 footnotes