What Is a "reason to Believe"? Execution of an Arrest Warrant at a Suspect's Residence Should Require Probable Cause

• Publication year: 2022

54 Creighton L. Rev. 323. WHAT IS A "REASON TO BELIEVE"? EXECUTION OF AN ARREST WARRANT AT A SUSPECT'S RESIDENCE SHOULD REQUIRE PROBABLE CAUSE

WHAT IS A "REASON TO BELIEVE"? EXECUTION OF AN ARREST WARRANT AT A SUSPECT'S RESIDENCE SHOULD REQUIRE PROBABLE CAUSE

-Robert Norton, '22 ^[*]

I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 323

II. BACKGROUND .................................... 326

A. EXAMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARDS .............. 326

B. THE CASE THAT STARTED THE CONTROVERSY: THE FACTS AND HOLDING OF PAYTON V. NEW YORK ............................................ 330

C. THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY ........................ 333

1. Cases Holding the Payton Reason to Believe Standard Equates to Probable Cause ......... 334

2. Cases Holding the Payton Reason to Believe Standard is Something Less than Probable Cause ....................................... 340

III. ARGUMENT ....................................... 343

A. THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE REASON TO BELIEVE STANDARD IS PROBABLE CAUSE ....... 343

1. The Supreme Court Uses Reason to Believe and Probable Cause Interchangeably ......... 345

2. The Fourth Amendment's Stringent Protection of the Home Is More Commensurate with the Probable Cause Standard .................................... 348

B. PUBLIC POLICY STRONGLY SUPPORTS A PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD ...................... 351

C. A REBUTTAL OF THE REASONINGS THE CIRCUIT COURTS HAVE UTILIZED TO EQUATE THE PAYTON V. NEW YORK STANDARD TO REASONABLE SUSPICION ....................................... 354

IV. CONCLUSION ..................................... 357

I. INTRODUCTION

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures the venerated right of the people to find sanctuary from unreasonable governmental intrusion within the unambiguous confines of their private homes. ^[1] Absent exigent circumstances, a distinct line is drawn promptly at the front door of the citizen's home. ^[2] These protections bestowed upon citizens are fundamental in safeguarding the sanctity of the home. ^[3] Additionally, these protections extend to wherever individuals harbor a reasonable expectation of privacy. ^[4]

Explicit language contained within the Fourth Amendment provides that no home shall be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant shall be issued unless founded upon probable cause. ^[5] Adherence to strict textualism establishes the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant for every search and seizure because, when read in its entirety, the Fourth Amendment contains two distinct clauses: the Rights Clause and the Warrant Clause. ^[6] However, the United States Supreme Court has established a warrant requirement when it is practicable for the government to obtain one. ^[7] The warrant requirement, nevertheless, has well delineated exceptions when a warrant would be impracticable to obtain. ^[8]

In the seminal case Payton v. New York, ^[9] the Supreme Court stated, for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, arrest warrants carry an implicit limited authority to enter a suspect's residence when there exists a reason to believe the suspect is within. ^[10] This language ignited a point of contention between the federal circuit courts and state courts with differing opinions on its interpretation. ^[11] Differences in interpretation and application are still prevalent today with some courts reasoning the language used in Payton applies a reasonable suspicion standard that is something less than probable cause and the remaining courts holding the reason to believe standard quintessentially equates to probable cause. ^[12] In the former, officers armed with an arrest warrant only need a reasonable suspicion that a suspect resides at and is within the residence in order to enter the premises and execute the arrest warrant. ^[13] In the latter, officers armed with an arrest warrant are required to show probable cause that a suspect resides at and is within the residence in order to execute the arrest warrant. ^[14]

First, this Note will discuss the standards of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, highlighting that these standards are distinguishable and probable cause requires additional magisterial findings. ^[15] Second, this Note will explore the facts and holdings of Payton. ^[16] Third, this Note will discuss differing interpretations and applications by courts of the reason to believe standard in Payton, and the background and reasonings for those decisions. ^[17] Fourth, this Note will argue that the correct interpretation of the reason to believe standard from Payton is to equate the standard with probable cause. ^[18] This conclusion is supported through the Court's usage of specific terms, how the Court has afforded protections to the home, and how public policy dictates a probable cause interpretation. ^[19] Finally, this Note will discuss opposing arguments and offer rebuttals. ^[20]

II. BACKGROUND

A. EXAMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARDS

Quantifiable standards for probable cause and reasonable suspicion have been nothing short of elusive for courts, academics, and commentators for centuries. ^[21] Probable cause is at the heart of the Fourth Amendment and is quite possibly the most misunderstood phrase in American law. ^[22] Probable cause defines what is and what is not a legal search, and it is the substantive constraint on police power in America. ^[23] This fundamental standard of evidentiary showing by law enforcement has eluded courts for centuries because it lacks hard certainties. ^[24] Both probable cause and reasonable suspicion are not easily reduced to neat legal standards that can be quantified more precisely like other burdens of proof that exist in our legal system. ^[25] Regardless of this fruitless task, the United States Supreme Court has held the level of evidentiary showing for reasonable suspicion is less than that for probable cause. ^[26]

Determining the existence of either probable cause or reasonable suspicion begins with an examination of the historical facts that led to a search or seizure and ends with an application of those facts to law. ^[27] The issue that must be decided by courts is whether those facts, when viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. ^[28] However, the only practical guidance given by the Supreme Court to assist lower courts in wading through the minefield of probable cause is to look at the totality of the circumstances. ^[29] The question then becomes what constitutes reasonable suspicion and, subsequently, what raises reasonable suspicion to probable cause. ^[30]

The standard of reasonable suspicion is significantly less than preponderance of the evidence and is less than probable cause. ^[31] The term has been described as requiring more than inchoate and unparticularized suspicions; it requires more than a hunch by the law enforcement officer. ^[32] The standard must be met by some objective evidentiary justification, and the suspicion must be based on some articulable facts. ^[33] Courts have allowed for specific reasonable inferences to be drawn from the officer's own experience; however, the limitation to that allowance is the experience of the officer alone does not justify reasonable suspicion. ^[34] The standard for reasonable suspicion is less rigid than probable cause, requires less proof, and relies less on the credibility of the source than probable cause. ^[35]

Probable cause has received various definitions through the centuries, and one can predict it will continue to ebb and flow. ^[36] Chief Justice Marshall observed the term probable cause meant something less than evidence required for condemnation but imports something similar to circumstances that warrant suspicion. ^[37] Similar to reasonable suspicion, probable cause can be founded upon specific inferences based on an officer's personal experience. ^[38] However, probable cause must be based on more proof or articulable facts than reasonable suspicion, and it requires more credible information that can be independently verified. ^[39]

To assist lower courts in evaluating hearsay evidence provided by officers to establish probable cause, the Supreme Court provided what was referred to as the Aguilar-Spinelli test. ^[40] This test had to be rigorously applied by a neutral magistrate to determine the reliability of the information provided by officers that was not available to be independently verified. ^[41] The first prong of the test required an examination of the basis of knowledge and a showing that the information was obtained in some dependable manner, not just through rumor or speculation. ^[42] The second prong, the veracity prong, required facts to be shown that established the credibility and reliability of the source. ^[43] The rigidity of the Aguilar-Spinelli test required each prong be independently verified for probable cause to exist based on hearsay information. ^[44]

However, in Illinois v. Gates, ^[45] the Court revised the probable cause standard and attempted to define the term, as it applied to searches, as a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be located in a specific place. ^[46] The Court in Gates also described the standard as a nontechnical and fluid conception based on assessing probabilities of...