Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Arrest warrant issued for incorrect house

[Jockeyperry]

Is an arrest warrant valid if arrest warrant was issued for a certain address, but arrest warrant was carried out by SWAT(entering home) of a different address?


An investigation was being conducted on someone and his residence. An arrest warrant was issued for that person and that address is stated on the arrest warrant. The following day, after the arrest warrant was issued, SWAT team carried out the arrest at another residence. Is this arrest warrant valid?

What are your thoughts?

 

[army judge]

Is an arrest warrant valid if arrest warrant was issued for a certain address, but arrest warrant was carried out by SWAT(entering home) of a different address?


An investigation was being conducted on someone and his residence. An arrest warrant was issued for that person and that address is stated on the arrest warrant. The following day, after the arrest warrant was issued, SWAT team carried out the arrest at another residence. Is this arrest warrant valid?

What are your thoughts?

An arrest warrant demands the police to effect the arrest of the person named on the warrant.

It need not even have an address.

It can be a "John Doe" warrant.

It can use the target's street name, "Peacock Poppa", for example.

It must contain enough information for the police to locate and arrest the correct person.

The address is just another way the police use to locate an individual.

Yes, the warrant was and is valid, no matter where and how, the police were able to locate the person named in the warrant.

 

[Jockeyperry]

I understand that the warrant is valid just by naming the target regardless of the address. Thank you for that information. I am wondering what is the law in regards to entering a home that can not be proven to be that of the target? The address listed on the arrest warrant is the correct address for the target, but the home that SWAT raided to arrest the target was not his home nor was it listed on the arrest warrant. If the police knew the residence where the arrest was made, then why was an arrest warrant issued for the incorrect address the day before? My point being, if investigation was thorough on where the Target was living, the proper address would have been listed. By those actions doesn't it show that police were not certain that house where defendant was arrested(SWAT raided) was in fact his residence. They raided a home that defendant was not permanently living in. What are your thoughts?

 

[jharris352]

Our thought is that its a good thing you cooperated because SWAT doesn't play. Secondly, why do you have friends who are bad enough to have SWAT out for them? Finally my thought is that its a good thing you didn't get arrested too for your association with this fellow. You know?

 

[army judge]

I understand that the warrant is valid just by naming the target regardless of the address. Thank you for that information. I am wondering what is the law in regards to entering a home that can not be proven to be that of the target? The address listed on the arrest warrant is the correct address for the target, but the home that SWAT raided to arrest the target was not his home nor was it listed on the arrest warrant. If the police knew the residence where the arrest was made, then why was an arrest warrant issued for the incorrect address the day before? My point being, if investigation was thorough on where the Target was living, the proper address would have been listed. By those actions doesn't it show that police were not certain that house where defendant was arrested(SWAT raided) was in fact his residence. They raided a home that defendant was not permanently living in. What are your thoughts?

I think I grasp what you've asked.
Your reasoning has nothing to do with the law.

Even if the entry to the home is determined at a later date to have been illegal, the arrest of sny wanted person would not have been illegal.

Look at this example.
Suppose the police entered a home illegally (by mistake or on purpose).
The "target", let's call her "Baby Doll" was known to one of the officers in the raid.
This officer was there for an entirely different purpose, than arresting "Baby Doll".

So Officer Dewright sees "Baby Doll", and knows she's wanted on a warrant for stealing the porridge of Baby Bear.
Officer Dewright can effect the arrest of "Baby Doll", regardless of what happens to other occupants in the house.

Heck, Officer Goodytwoshoes could have spotted "Baby Doll" in the local Walmart and was off duty.
Officer Goodytwoshoes could have even snatched "Baby Doll" up right on aisle 11 in Walmart.

It doesn't matter how the police snagged "Baby Doll", she's been got!
The officers had no other choice than to arrest "Baby Doll".
They are mandated by law to arrest anyone under warrant at anytime and anywhere.
"Baby Doll" could have even been arrested at her Uncle's funeral outside the First Church of Forgiveness.

 

[Jockeyperry]

Thanks for your responses. So, you are saying that SWAT can enter ANY home just to get their target? Their sole purpose of entering this home was arrest this target. A target that they could of easily picked up on the street. They entered a home, that did not belong to target, nor was target permanently living there. This was not a public place and target was being investigated and watched on a daily basis. Depositions state that investigators knew his every move. It is more than obvious that the raid was carried out in hopes that a search would result in the finding of illegal drugs or weapons. My question still lies on what is the legalities of entering a home that is not certain to be that of the target. It seems by what you explained, target could have gone anywhere, visited anywhere or anyone, and the police have authority the enter someone else's home with SWAT to carry out an arrest warrant. This just doesn't seem right.

 

[mightymoose]

Just because the actual warrant lists the suspect's home address does not mean that the police did not list both addresses in their application for the warrant. The format for the warrant likely only supports one address. You probably won't be able to get it, but what you want to see is the warrant application.

However, as said above, the arrest warrant is good no matter where the suspect is at. If the suspect is in another person's home then the police either need a search warrant for that home or they need permission to enter. Do you know if the police obtained a separate search warrant for the residence where the arrest warrant was served? That is something to look in to.

Also, even though you say that the person did not live in the house where he was found, circumstances can prove otherwise. If he had been there for any length of time, or was known to be hiding out there and police had credible information that he was there... then they may have been able to make a legitimate entry to arrest him... but that depends on circumstances. What I am saying is that it does not have to be his legal residence... they just have to know that it is where he is staying, even if temporarily. What they can't do is storm the residence and tear it apart just to check (without a search warrant).

It sounds as if they had good information since they did in fact find him there, so chances are that any argument of wrongdoing by they police will fall flat.

 

[Jockeyperry]

Mightymouse, this is what I am trying to get at. The arrest warrant was obtained one day before the arrest warrant under the suspicion the target had moved. Target was not running. Target even put in a change of address. Target did not show any signs he was running from the law. He was not aware there was a warrant for his arrest. Why did they not catch him at his house? Why did they choose to raid a home using SWAT that he spent the night at? They rushed the home without a search warrant. A search warrant was then issued 3 hours after rushing the home. Target spent the night in this home for one night. In the morning SWAT rushed the home and arrested him along with everyone else in the home. Regardless, I know the arrest was valid. I just find it very odd that police can rush into someone's house with SWAT if a target just happens to be there. This is very wrong in my opinion especially if target can be picked up on the street or at any other time. They knew his whereabouts. They did not have permission to enter this home. The motive here was to search for illegal drugs or weapons. Rushing the home gave no one an opportunity to hide or rid of anything illegal in the home.

 

[mightymoose]

Well just to be clear.... police DO NOT need a warrant to enter that home under 2 conditions:
1. They have a valid arrest warrant
2. They have legitimate reason to believe the person to be arrested is currently in the home.

They can't make entry into the home to search and check- they must have some valid reason to believe he is there and make entry.

You opened up another can of worms though....

The warrantless entry was most likely valid (assuming the police had good information to act on, which it appears they did) and the purpose of that entry was to locate and arrest the person named in the warrant.

HOWEVER, once inside the residence for that legitimate purpose, any other illegal activity, contraband, etc that is in plain view is fair game for the police to act on. They CAN NOT search the rest of the residence beyond what is in plain view without a search warrant, which it seems they followed through and obtained shortly after the arrest.

Surely you are wondering about 4th Amendment protections against searches and seizures. The 4th Amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, not all searches and seizures. The important element here is the information that the police had before they decided to make entry into the third party home. That information is what determines the reasonableness of the entry to effect the arrest warrant- and again, once they are in there, whatever is in plain view is fair game.

Lesson to be learned- don't allow wanted criminals into your home, and if you do you had better keep all your stuff stashed!

 

[jharris352]

Moose, I think the US Supreme Court may not agree with you. I was reading this in connection with a case I was working on and I'm pretty shocked. Look at this:

Steagald v.United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38
(1981) (officers possessing an arrest warrant for one individual
are not entitled, without a search warrant, consent, or exigent
circumstances, to enter the home of another for purposes of
executing the arrest warrant), appellants could not objectively
have viewed the family court's temporary restraint of Patricia
Rice as a blanket authorization for them to enter the Hurlmans'
home.

 

[army judge]

Moose, I think the US Supreme Court may not agree with you. I was reading this in connection with a case I was working on and I'm pretty shocked. Look at this:

Steagald v.United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38
(1981) (officers possessing an arrest warrant for one individual
are not entitled, without a search warrant, consent, or exigent
circumstances, to enter the home of another for purposes of
executing the arrest warrant), appellants could not objectively
have viewed the family court's temporary restraint of Patricia
Rice as a blanket authorization for them to enter the Hurlmans'
home.

However, if the target's warrant were for rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery, drug dealing; that's a different fact pattern that court's have long upheld.

Now, had the warrant been an FTA for running a stop sign, or a $10.00 shoplifting warrant; I think your cite applies.

 

[jharris352]

I didn't do a lot of research on that, I was researching something else and was surprised that it seemed to fit so I threw it out there. Interesting.

 

[mightymoose]

The circumstances were different in Steagald. Police entered the third party residence to search for the warrant suspect, but they did not have information that he was there at the time... they were just checking... and they didn't find him but found a good stash of dope. Steagald was then arrested in his own home without there ever being an arrest warrant for him or a search warrant for his home.

In this case police entered the third party home (presumably on information that their suspect was there) for the purpose of arresting that person on the warrant. Whether or not this location was considered a residence of the suspect is a little fuzzy.
It sounds as if the police made plain view observations while making the arrest, then obtained a search warrant based on those observations to thoroughly check the rest of the residence and make additional arrests.

The Steagald case stated that the homeowner and others inside a third party residence had a reasonable expectation of privacy that an arrest warrant for a particular subject did not cover... meaning that police could not use any search warrant as grounds to search any place they wanted in hopes of finding the person they were looking for and making arrests along the way. What Steagald does not address is when police have reason to believe the person they are after is currently present in the third party home. Since it is a third party residence and the suspect could be on the move at any time, exigency is an issue, and they can enter that home TO MAKE THE ARREST, not to search. With a lawful presence in the house in order to make the arrest, plain view rules still apply.

I am trying to recall another case regarding this and the name Tolbert comes to mind, but I don't remember Tolbert v who.... but I think it went to the appellate court, not the Supreme Court. I will see if I can find it... but Tolbert was some years after Steagald.

Again, the whole thing hinges on the credibility of the information police have that the person they are looking for is actually present at the time they intend to make entry- they can go in to make the arrest with the reasonable belief the person is there, but can't search the house just to see if the person is there.

 

[mightymoose]

Didn't find what I was looking for, but this is a good rundown on the same topic.

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/arrest_warrants_third_party_premises.shtml

The only difference mentioned here that I didn't dig in to is exigency. We don't know what the warrant was for, but I would bet that since SWAT was used there was likely a valid case for exigency.

 

[mightymoose]

Also, for what it is worth to the OP, even if entry into the house is questionable, or if it is found to be improper, that will have no effect on the validity of the arrest.

If the entry was found to be bad then any contraband seized or additional arrests made will likely get tossed, but the person named in the warrant has no argument to make against an unlawful entry, only the homeowner.

 

[Patricia_Young]

The subject line of this thread just struck me as funny.

One does not arrest a house.

 

[army judge]

Along the lines of the original post, a similar incident happened this weekend in Detroit and turned deadly.
The police, upon entering a residence, met with resistance, a struggle ensued; and a seven year old girl is dead.
The child was asleep in her bed as the bullet from the officer's weapon tore though her neck and head!
The matter is under investigation.
A very sad tragedy no matter what the outcome determines for the officer and the innocent child's family.

Police in Detroit, Michigan, on Sunday expressed "profound sorrow" at the fatal shooting of a 7-year-old girl in a police raid.

Aiyana Jones was shot and killed by police executing a search warrant as part of a homicide investigation, Assistant Chief Ralph Godbee said in a statement.

"This is any parent's worst nightmare," Godbee said. "It also is any police officer's worst nightmare. And today, it is all too real."

The warrant was executed about 12:40 a.m. ET Sunday at a home on the city's east side, Godbee said. Authorities believed the suspect in the Friday shooting death of 17-year-old high school student Jarean Blake was hiding out at the home. Blake was gunned down in front of a store as his girlfriend watched, Godbee said.

Preliminary information indicates that members of the Detroit Police Special Response Team approached the house and announced themselves as police, Godbee said, citing the officers and at least one independent witness.

"As is common in these types of situations, the officers deployed a distractionary device commonly known as a flash bang," he said in the statement. "The purpose of the device is to temporarily disorient occupants of the house to make it easier for officers to safely gain control of anyone inside and secure the premise."

Upon entering the home, the officer encountered a 46-year-old female inside the front room, Godbee said. "Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

"At about this time, the officer's weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area."

The girl was immediately transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Godbee said he and other officers went to the hospital while others stayed at the home to execute the warrant.

Aiyana's father, Charles Jones, told CNN affiliate WDIV, "She was sleeping and they came in the door shooting and throwing flash grenades ... burned my baby up and shot her, killed her."

Jones claimed the officers had the wrong house, but Godbee said in the statement the 34-year-old suspect in Blake's death was found and arrested at the home. In addition, a vehicle and a moped matching the descriptions of those involved in Blake's shooting were also found, he said.

The suspect's name was not released.

Godbee said he wished to "express to the family of Aiyana Jones the profound sorrow that we feel within the Detroit Police Department and throughout this community. We know that no words can do anything to take away the pain you are feeling at this time."

Police obtained the "high-risk search warrant" based on intelligence, and it was approved by the prosecutor and a magistrate, Godbee said. "Because of the ruthless and violent nature of the suspect in this case, it was determined that it would be in the best interest of public safety to execute the search warrant as soon as possible and detain the suspect ... while we sought a murder warrant," he said.

The police statement said Chief Warren Evans is out of town and could not be present "to personally address this tragedy," but "his thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of Aiyana Jones."

The officer's weapon was secured, and an investigation is under way, Godbee said, emphasizing the information gained so far is preliminary.

"This is a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude to Aiyana's parents, family and all those who loved her," Godbee said. "... It is a tragedy we also feel very deeply throughout the ranks of the Detroit Police Department.

"We cannot undo what occurred this morning," he said. "All we can do is pledge an open and full investigation and to support Aiyana's family in whatever way they may be willing to accept from us at this time. I understand that they may not be open to such a gesture at this time, but we do stand ready to do anything we can to support them."


http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/16/michigan.police.child/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

 

[mightymoose]

From what I read, the "struggle" is questionable. it seems the lead officer making entry, with gun drawn, may have simply collided with the grandmother which resulted in an accidental discharge.
This officer is probably in deep doo-doo.

Anyway- in the Detroit scenario, police actually had a warrant for that location and did locate and arrest the murder suspect, and also located other evidence related to the crime.

 

[army judge]

From what I read, the "struggle" is questionable. it seems the lead officer making entry, with gun drawn, may have simply collided with the grandmother which resulted in an accidental discharge.
This officer is probably in deep doo-doo.

Yes, I was trying to be kind and not sensationalize.

I feel so sorry for the little girl.

There are millions like her in this country, with horrible parents making poor choices.

Poor little girl never had a chance.

I spent three years in 'Nam (some years ago) as a Ranger.

I've seen more death than anyone should ever see.

It always saddens me when innocents get hurt!

 

[mightymoose]

So, you are saying that SWAT can enter ANY home just to get their target?

No. They can enter with sufficient reason to believe the suspect is present, and with exigent circumstances, for the purpose of arresting the suspect only (no other search).

Their sole purpose of entering this home was arrest this target.

That can be the ONLY legitimate purpose for entering any home with only an arrest warrant.

A target that they could of easily picked up on the street.

Believe me, a wanted suspect can quickly disappear on the street, or can become a danger to others as he tries to escape.

They entered a home, that did not belong to target, nor was target permanently living there.

The suspect has no more expectation of privacy in the home of a third party than he does in his own home. If he was even temporarily staying there then that boosts the reason to believe he may be found there, but the length of his stay does not matter so long as the police had valid information that he was present at the time.

This was not a public place and target was being investigated and watched on a daily basis. Depositions state that investigators knew his every move.

This is more information that tells us the police had solid information that he was inside the house at the time they entered to make the arrest.

It is more than obvious that the raid was carried out in hopes that a search would result in the finding of illegal drugs or weapons.

That is very possible, and kudos to them if they planned it that way. Remember that they can't search the house for contraband without a warrant... only what is in plain view. However, they may search the immediate area where the suspect was arrested.

My question still lies on what is the legalities of entering a home that is not certain to be that of the target. It seems by what you explained, target could have gone anywhere, visited anywhere or anyone, and the police have authority the enter someone else's home with SWAT to carry out an arrest warrant. This just doesn't seem right.

I think there is some information we are missing here. The police probably either considered him to be dangerous or a potential flight risk. If the guy had been on the move then they may not have had time to get a formal warrant, which can take hours. If they felt they had exigent circumstances, then they were okay to make entry. However, you said that it wasn't his "permanent" residence, which leads me to believe it was at least a temporary residence. The address on the warrant really does not matter. With sufficient reason to believe he was there, they were good to make their move. And again, it sounds like they correctly followed up with a search warrant for the house.

It is very possible that a judge won't like how this all went down and everything aside from the arrest of the warrant suspect could get tossed... however if the police provide a good enough argument that explains the reasonableness of their actions, exigency, plain view observations, and a subsequent search warrant, then it could well stand up too.