You Have the Right to Remain Silent—But Only if You’re Told You Do?

BACKGROUND

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that interrogation of an individual who is in government custody is presumed to be compulsive. Reciting the warnings that the Court spelled out in Miranda, including the “right to remain silent,” provides a safeguard against violating a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination in the coercive setting of government custody. Implicit within Miranda warnings is the assurance that a defendant’s silence “will carry no penalty.” Wainwright v. Greenfield. Consequently, prosecution cannot use a criminal defendant’s silence after Miranda warnings have been given in its case-in-chief to prove the defendant’s guilt. 

Surprisingly, the question remains as to whether a defendant’s silence in response to government interrogation post-arrest but pre-Miranda warnings can be used against the defendant at trial as substantive evidence of guilt. 

THE ISSUE

Can the prosecution use a criminal defendant’s silence after the defendant is in custody but before Miranda warnings are given as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief? 

THE SPLIT

In the 2013 case Salinas v. Texas, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s non-response to a question by law enforcement while not in custody is admissible and can be used against the defendant as evidence of guilt. But the Court did not explicitly state whether a defendant’s pre-Miranda silence in response to interrogation is admissible if the defendant is in custody. While the Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits prohibit using post-arrest, pre-Miranda warning silence as substantive evidence of guilt, the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits allow the prosecution to use a defendant’s silence at any timeprior to the issuance of Miranda warnings.

On one side of the split, the Ninth Circuit has held that prosecution may only use a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony, but not for its case-in-chief. In United States v. Hernandez, the court noted that a defendant’s right to remain silent is triggered by any custodial interrogation, not just when the defendant has been read Miranda rights. The D.C. Circuit went one step further in U.S. v. Moore, stating that “custody not interrogation is the triggering mechanism for the right to pretrial silence under Miranda.” The D.C. Circuit’s holding means that the prosecution cannot comment on a defendant’s silence while in custody prior to Mirandawarnings, even if there has been no interrogation. 

In contrast, in United States v. Cornwell, the Fourth Circuit held that presenting video footage at trial which showed the defendant’s silence in response to police questioning did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights “[b]ecause Cornwell had not received Miranda warnings at the time the video was recorded.” Similarly, the Eight Circuit in United States v. Osuna-Zepeda held that presenting evidence to the jury about a defendant’s failure to make a statement at the time of his arrest, but before he was given Miranda warnings, did not violated his Fifth Amendment right. The court noted that “an arrest by itself is not government action that implicitly induces a defendant to remain silent.”  

Eleventh Circuit precedent was established in 1991 in United States v. Rivera, in which the court held that the prosecution could comment at trial on the defendant’s silence when she was in custody because Miranda warnings had not yet been given. In 2016, the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Wilchcombe followed the Rivera precedent, but acknowledged the entrenched circuit split and the lack of guidance from the Supreme Court. The court noted that Salinas was not controlling because in contrast to the defendants in Wilchcombe, the Salinas defendant was not in custody at the time of the silence in question. Nevertheless, the Eleventh Circuit in Wilchcombe affirmed a lower court decision to allow the prosecution to use the defendants’ silence after they were apprehended but before Miranda warnings were delivered as proof of guilt.

LOOKING FORWARD

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to resolve this circuit split by granting certiorari in Palacios-Solis v. U.S. In Palacios-Solis, the U.S. Coast Guard stopped and boarded a vessel in the Pacific Ocean and detained three defendants who were suspected of smuggling cocaine. The Coast Guard officers did not recite Miranda warnings, and the defendants remained silent in the face of the officers’ questions. The Eleventh Circuit, based on its own precedent, declined to overturn the district court’s decision to allow the prosecution to use the defendants’ pre-Miranda silence as evidence of guilt. The court again acknowledged the circuit split but, as in Wilchcombe, chose to follow its circuit precedent because the Supreme Court has not addressed this specific issue. Defendants have filed a petition for writ of certiorari. 

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari to resolve this deep circuit split and to ensure that law enforcement and lower courts honor the constitutional rights of criminal defendants in custody. Until the split is resolved, defendants’ right to remain silent will vary by jurisdiction. In some circuits, their silence after arrest, but before they have been told they have the right to remain silent, can be used against them at trial. 

Prosecution cannot use defendants’ responses to custodial interrogation against them if they have not received Miranda warnings, nor can prosecution use non-response to questions after Miranda warnings have been given. But in the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, the government can use defendants’ silence in the face of custodial interrogation against them when police do not recite Miranda warnings. As Judge Rosenbaum’s state in her concurring opinion in Palacios-Solis, such an anomalous result “eviscerates the purposes of Miranda” and creates a significant risk of violating the Fifth Amendment rights of criminal defendants in those circuits. A suspect in custody cannot voluntarily relinquish the privilege against self-incrimination if he doesn’t know he has the privilege in the first place.

Additionally, as  the D.C. Circuit noted in U.S. v. Moore, allowing the prosecution to comment at trial on a defendant’s pre-Miranda silence while in custody provides a perverse incentive for law enforcement to delay Miranda warnings and use a defendant’s refusal to answer questions against him or her at trial. Until the Supreme Court clarifies this issue and resolves the circuit split, the extent of a defendant’s right to remain silent after arrest will vary by jurisdiction. 

Rules of Interrogation: Title IX and the Opportunity to Cross-Examine Complainants

BACKGROUND

Title IX, passed as part of the Educational Amendments of 1972, states that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Three Supreme Court decisions during the 1990s interpreted Title IX to require schools to respond adequately and appropriately to incidents of sexual harassment and violence perpetrated against students.

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued what is referred to as a “Dear Colleague” letter, which provided guidance to schools and reminded them of their obligation to address incidents of sexual assault as civil rights matters under Title IX. In this letter, the OCR under the Obama administration made recommendations regarding procedures schools should follow when addressing a Title IX complaint. One procedural recommendation by the OCR was to discourage allowing parties to personally question and cross-examine each other during a hearing on alleged sexual violence. The OCR reasoned that this method may be “traumatic or intimidating” and would potentially foster a hostile environment. Additionally, schools are not required to allow cross-examination of witnesses.

Most recently, the Department of Education under Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration has announced its intention to issue sweeping changes to the rules governing campus sexual assault. One of the major rules proposed through the early 2019 notice-and-comment procedure was a requirement that schools allow cross-examination of those alleging sexual harassment or assault.

THE ISSUE

In sexual misconduct cases, are schools required to provide a respondent with the opportunity for live cross-examination of the complainant and his or her representatives?

THE SPLIT

In 2018, the Sixth Circuit heard the case Doe v. Baum (2018). John Doe, the plaintiff and initial respondent in a sexual misconduct investigation at the University of Michigan, filed suit after the case made its way through the university’s appeals process. When the investigation was resolved in the complainant’s favor, Mr. Doe voluntarily withdrew from the university but later claimed that the university’s disciplinary procedures were in violation of both the Due Process Clause and Title IX. His argument was that, because the university’s decision turned on a finding of credibility, the school should have been required to provide him with the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that the University of Michigan did violate the student’s right to due process by failing to afford him the right to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses.

Relying on the decision in Baum, a respondent in a sexual assault investigation at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst filed suit after the university held a hearing and eventually expelled him. The respondent, Mr. Haidak, argued that his rights under Title IX and the Due Process Clause were violated because the university did not provide him with the opportunity to interrogate the complainant. In a split from the ruling in the Sixth Circuit, the First Circuit held in Haidak v. University of Massachusetts-Amherst (2018) that it is not a categorical requirement that schools must provide respondents with the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, either directly or through a representative. The court explained that a school’s decision to examine the witnesses and parties by using a neutral factfinder would not be so fundamentally flawed in its procedure as to deprive the respondent of their right to due process. The Court reasoned that requiring the right to the kind of cross-examination demanded by Mr. Haidak would cause the disciplinary proceedings to essentially mirror a common law trial, which the First Circuit deemed unnecessary.

LOOKING FORWARD

Title IX administrators anticipate publication of the finalized regulations any day now. The proposed regulations relied heavily on the Baum decision and procedural requirements as outlined by the Sixth Circuit, conflicting with the First Circuit in Haidak. It remains to be seen what procedures will be required by the final Title IX regulations, but it is unlikely we will see any shift away from the rationale and procedures as outlined in Baum.

Educational institutions in the First Circuit will be forced to take into account both the Haidak decision and the new regulations when updating their Title IX policies. Additionally, many universities utilize the method of fact-finding supported by Haidak, which allows for a neutral party to interview the complainant and respondent. The split between the First and Sixth Circuits coupled with the introduction of the new Title IX regulations by the Department of Education will force different institutions to follow different sets of rules depending on the jurisdiction in which they are located. Various Title IX cases are awaiting trial or adjudication across the country, and experts are eager to find out which of the procedural frameworks appear to be the standard. With these rulings, it is becoming increasingly more likely that the Supreme Court will be forced to consider the Title IX procedures.

For further reading, see: First Circuit Splits from Sixth Circuit and Education Department on Title IX (2019), OCR Is About to Rock Our Worlds (2020) by Brett A. Sokolow, and 5 College Title IX Lawsuits to Watch (2019) by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf.

Accuracy v. Finality: The Implications of Habeas Rights Based on AEDPA Interpretations

BACKGROUND

With the release of the film Just Mercy, the debate over balancing the prevention of wrongful convictions against the assurance of finality in serious criminal matters has once again come into the spotlight. This dispute is not only receiving national attention in pop culture, but is also making headlines in the judicial field with the emergence of a new circuit split.

A habeas petition is a method invoked by prisoners seeking an early release by challenging the legitimacy of their detention. In 1996, the ability to file habeas petitions was limited with the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, a prisoner has just one opportunity to file a motion to vacate the earlier sentence. A second opportunity is permitted only when the Supreme Court adopts a new and favorable rule of constitutional law. Prisoners are also restricted to just one habeas petition, unless they can demonstrate that AEDPA’s remedy is “inadequate or ineffective.”

THE ISSUE

Can the AEDPA remedy be considered inadequate or ineffective, thereby circumventing the single habeas restriction, when a new rule of statutory construction is adopted by a circuit court?

THE SPLIT

In Hueso v. Barnhart (2020), the Sixth Circuit split from the Fourth Circuit, interpreting AEDPA to increase restrictions on habeas rights. Hueso was convicted of drug trafficking in Alaska. He was initially sentenced to 10 years in prison; however, the term was doubled under a federal sentencing law. The year after his conviction, the Supreme Court rejected the interpretation permitting doubling. At the time, Hueso’s counsel had already filed a Motion to Vacate challenging evidence, which was rejected. Counsel then filed a habeas petition based on the Supreme Court ruling. The court denied the petition based on Sixth Circuit precedent that barred habeas cases from entertaining challenges based on sentencing. However, in 2016, the Sixth Circuit overturned its previous holding, thereby permitting sentencing-based habeas petitions.

As a result, Hueso’s counsel filed another habeas petition, but this time it was rejected under AEDPA. Hueso appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing that he should be permitted to file a second habeas under AEDPA because the AEDPA remedy was inadequate and ineffective. The Sixth Circuit denied the appeal on two bases. First, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that the Supreme Court ruling rejecting double sentencing could not be introduced in a subsequent challenge as the decision was made while Hueso’s first Motion to Vacate was pending. The court reasoned that the decision was available at the time of the challenge and, therefore, the failure to mention it barred a second attempt. Second, the Sixth Circuit held that the second habeas petition was correctly denied because the basis of the petition centered on a circuit court decision to permit sentencing-based habeas petitions. The Sixth Circuit rationalized that this decision was not constitutional law, as required under AEDPA, and thus could not be a basis for seeking to file subsequent petitions.

The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning diverged from the Fourth Circuit’s prior interpretation in United States v. Wheeler (2018). Wheeler was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm. Wheeler entered into a plea deal, agreeing to an enhanced sentence with a mandatory minimum of 120 months. The next year, Wheeler’s counsel filed a Motion to Vacate, citing both inefficient counsel and the fact that the conviction did not qualify for an enhanced sentence. The Motion was denied based on Fourth Circuit precedent allowing a maximum aggravated sentence to be imposed. Wheeler’s counsel sought to appeal by filing a certificate of appealability. While the appeal was pending, the previous precedent relied upon was overturned by the Fourth Circuit with a finding that a district court could only consider the maximum sentence that the particular defendant could receive in enhanced sentence matters. However, Wheeler’s appeal was still denied based on the reasoning that the new decision could not be applied retroactively.

Wheeler’s counsel subsequently filed a habeas petition, arguing that the AEDPA remedy was inadequate and ineffective. In this case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the inadequacy on appeal. The court reasoned:

“[W]e conclude that [AEDPA] is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the sentence; subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first … motion, the aforementioned settled substantive law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping requirements … for second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental defect.”

LOOKING FORWARD

Following the Wheeler decision, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The petition was denied in March 2019, before the split emerged. The developing split has the potential for unfortunate consequences for prisoners based solely on the region they are imprisoned in. The split will inevitably result in disparate results concerning a prisoner’s rights to seek relief and retrial in the case of wrongful convictions. In the Sixth Circuit, Judge Karen Nelson Moore acknowledged the disparity in her dissent, pointing out that Hueso would “almost certainly prevail” had he attacked his sentence the first time, and noting that, as a result of the majority interpretation, Hueso would be spending another decade incarcerated.

Deliberate Indifference: Does the Eighth Amendment Guarantee Access to Gender Confirmation Surgery For Transgender Prisoners?

BACKGROUND

The Eighth Amendment explicitly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but what are the parameters of this protection? In Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court expanded the definition to include “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.” This 1976 decision proscribes a form of inhumane treatment that extends beyond physical punishment:

“(D)enial of medical care may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose… The infliction of such unnecessary suffering is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency as manifested in modern legislation codifying the common law view that “it is but just that the public be required to care for the prisoner, who cannot, by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself.”

However, it is not the case that every prisoner’s claim for inadequate medical treatment necessarily involves an Eighth Amendment violation. Under Kolisek v. Spencer, to prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) a serious medical need exists, and (2) prison administrators’ acted with deliberate indifference to that need.

THE ISSUE

The aforementioned two-prong test comes into play when deciding whether an inmate can receive treatment for gender dysphoria. According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, gender dysphoria is defined as “distress that is caused by discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth.” In the recently decided case, Edmo v. Corizon, the Ninth Circuit went on to recognize that, if left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to “debilitating distress, depression, impairment of function, substance use, self-surgery to alter one’s genitals or secondary sex characteristics, self-injurious behaviors, and even suicide.” Despite this, the question of whether gender dysphoria is a serious medical issue for inmates is not at issue here.

With regard to gender dysphoria, treatment ranges from changes in gender expression to gender confirmation surgery (GCS). The latter is politically controversial, but a growing body of evidence demonstrates that it is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The Fifth Circuit, in Gibson v. Collier, expressed concern that transgender prisoners are not guaranteed “the best treatment for gender dysphoria, only that which prevents their medical well-being from dropping below ‘society’s minimum standards of decency.’”

The legal controversy at issue here involves the definition of “adequate treatment,” specifically the standard for “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s medical need in the context of transgender prisoners. The question becomes whether a transgender inmate’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment is violated when GCS is denied and substituted with less invasive treatment.

THE SPLIT

The Fifth and Ninth Circuits diverge in their interpretation of the First Circuit’s opinion in Kosilek v. Spencer, which held that Michelle Kosilek, an anatomically male prisoner who identified as female, was not entitled to GCS. The Court reasoned that, although her gender dysphoria was severe, it was unclear whether GCS would provide significantly greater relief than the non-surgical treatment she was already receiving. The prison was found not deliberately indifferent, and the claim was denied.

The Fifth Circuit has interpreted Kosilek as creating a de facto, blanket ban on GCS on the grounds that there exists controversy about whether the procedure is ever medically necessary. In Gibson v. Collier, Vanessa Gibson (who the Fifth Circuit insists on calling Scott Gibson), is a male-to-female transgender inmate who has been presenting as female since the age of fifteen. Despite receiving hormonal therapy from the prison, Vanessa showed signs of depression, attempted to castrate herself, and even attempted suicide three times. The Court, however, held that withholding GCS from her is not “deliberate indifference” because there exists controversy about the efficacy of the procedure, finding that an Eighth Amendment violation did not occur. The Court granted summary judgment against Gibson for failing to provide sufficient evidence of medical indifference, and reaffirmed the prison policy that denied the inmate’s right to be evaluated as a candidate for GCS in the first place.

In contrast, in Edmo v. Corizon, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Kosilek decision by holding that the medical necessity of GCS must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Adree Edmo had received non-invasive treatment for her gender dysphoria as an inmate in Idaho. Despite these efforts, Edmo continued to suffer from suicidal ideations, depression, and attempts to self-castrate. Citing the district court’s lengthy discussion of the latest research on gender dysphoria and the efficacy of GCS, the Court determined that it was medically necessary for Edmo to receive the surgery. Due to the increased social awareness of transgender healthcare and significant advancement in treatment, the Ninth Circuit held: where an inmate’s health record shows medical necessity in treating gender dysphoria, and prison officials deny such treatment, those officials are in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

LOOKING FORWARD

In concluding his opinion in Gibson, Judge Ho argued that “it cannot be deliberately indifferent to deny in Texas what is controversial in every other state.” It is, however, this exact controversy that highlights the need for certiorari. It is clear that the lack of access to ever evolving and effective treatment causes severe medical harm, as was the case with Michelle, Vanessa, Adree, and several other transgender inmates. This predictable and preventable harm falls well below the “minimum standards of decency” the Eighth Amendment aims to preserve.

Joining Forces: Whether § 2 of the VRA Permits Aggregation to Create Majority-Minority Coalition Districts

BACKGROUND

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in the VRA. In 1982, Congress amended § 2 to allow a plaintiff to establish a violation of the Section if the evidence established by a “totality of the circumstance of the local election process” that the standard, practice or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. In effect, this empowered voters to challenge district lines drawn to either dilute or pack minority voters to decrease their influence on the political process.

In its first case following the passage of the 1982 amendments, the Supreme Court explained in Thornburg v. Gingles that the “essence of the Section 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.”

The Court in Gingles held the following:

  • That the use of multimember districts generally will not impede the ability of minority voters to elect representatives unless: (1) the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) the minority group is politically cohesive; and (3) the white majority group votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.
  • That a showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates is one way of proving the requisite political cohesiveness.
  • A white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white “crossover” votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.
  • That the “clearly erroneous test” of Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the appropriate standard of appellate review for a finding of vote dilution.

Despite these findings, the Court did not consider whether § 2 permits a claim brought by a minority group that is not sufficiently large and compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district.

In Growe v. Emison, Johnson v. DeGrandy, and LULAC v. Perry, the Supreme Court continued to sidestep the question by assuming, without deciding, that it is possible to state a § 2 claim for a racial group that makes up less than 50% of the population.

In Bartlett v. Strickland, the Court considered the “minimum-size” question under the first requirement of Gingles. It made clear that the holding only addressed the issue as it pertains to crossover districts, not coalition districts. In crossover districts, minority voters make up less than a majority of the voting population, but the minority population, at least potentially, is large enough to elect the candidate of its choice with the help of voters who are members of the majority and who cross over to support the minority’s preferred candidate. Coalition-district claims, on the other hand, involve two minority groups that form a coalition to elect the candidate of the coalition’s choice. The Court held that crossover districts are not protected under § 2.

THE ISSUE

Pursuant to § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is the majority-minority requirement under the first Gingles precondition satisfied when minorities from more than one racial or ethnic group, joined together, constitute a majority of the citizen voting age population?

THE SPLIT

The 5th Circuit has been most explicit in permitting coalition districts. In Campos v. City of Baytown, the court held that minority voters can be aggregated so that “together, they are of such numbers residing geographically so as to constitute a majority in a single member district, they cross the Gingles threshold as potentially disadvantaged voters.” Still, the plaintiffs must prove the minorities actually vote together in a cohesive manner. The court determined that the standard for proving cohesion is whether the minority group together votes in a cohesive manner for the minority candidate.

Following Campos, the 2nd Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 11th Circuit have tacitly permitted coalition districts, though not as explicitly as the 5th Circuit. In both Badillo v. City of Stockton and Concerned Citizens of Hardee County v. Hardee County Board of Commissioners, the courts assumed it was acceptable to aggregate voters of different minority groups, but the plaintiffs in both cases failed to prove the requisite political cohesion necessary to satisfy the second Gingles requirement. In Bridgeport Coalition for Fair Representation v. City of Bridgeport, the 2nd Circuit assumed the coalition districts were covered under § 2 and that requisite political cohesion was proven to satisfy the elements of Gingles.

Deviating from the other circuits, the 6th Circuit refused to extend § 2 coverage to a minority group that includes more than one race or ethnicity. In Nixon v. Kent County, the court held that if Congress wanted to protect a minority group that was composed of more than one race or ethnicity, it would have used more words in the plural form in § 2, such as “protected classes” rather than “protected class.”

LOOKING FORWARD

Recently, the Supreme Court seems more willing to take on cases dealing with issues of independent redistricting commissions and partisan gerrymandering. It also has been willing to take on cases regarding § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the application of the Gingles factors in § 2 claims. While the Court has not yet signaled a willingness to take on the issue of coalition districts, the number of cases arising from the use of African-American and Hispanic voters to create the majority-minority districts will likely continue to increase as the Hispanic population continues to grow. If the Supreme Court does not take up the issue, there may be an increase in coalition districts drawn following the 2020 Census.

It Seemed like the Reasonable Approach at the Time: A Circuit Split on the Meaning of “Reasonable Belief” in Search and Seizure

How Many Warrants?

Two major Supreme Court decisions are at play here concerning the constitutionality of officers entering residences to execute arrest warrants when residency of the suspect is uncertain.

In the aftermath of the first case, Payton v. New York (S.Ct. 1980), the Courts of Appeals developed a two-prong test to assess the constitutionality of an officer’s entry to execute an arrest warrant: the officer must have a “reasonable belief” that (1) the “arrestee lives in the residence, and that (2) the “arrestee is within the residence.” United States v. Gay (10th Cir. 2001).

One year after Payton, the Supreme Court held that officers may not enter the residence of a third party to execute an arrest warrant unless they first obtain a search warrant based on the belief that the suspect “might be a guest there.” Steagald v. United States (S.Ct. 1981). This created a stricter standard for entering officers if they believe only that the suspect is a common “guest” in the residence rather than a resident or immediately within the residence. Thus, officers would much prefer that the arrestee is a resident and within the residence as opposed to being simply a guest.  The determination of whether officers need only an arrest warrant to enter versus an arrest warrant and a search warrant to enter a residence is entirely dependent on an officer’s “reasonable belief.”

The circuit courts have since been faced with discerning what constitutes a “reasonable belief,” thus determining when both an arrest and a search warrant are necessary for constitutional entry into third party residences as opposed to only an arrest warrant.

Circuit Split

The Third Circuit is the most recent voice to enter the interpretive dispute surrounding the standard of “reasonable belief.” United States v. Vasquez-Algarin (3rd Cir. 2016).

Joining the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, the Third Circuit held that reasonable belief should be viewed as the functional equivalent of probable cause, and thus the same standard.  The practical effect of requiring a probable cause standard is that it makes it more difficult to enter only with an arrest warrant. The Third Circuit had two primary reasons for their decision:

  • First, the Supreme Court’s use of the phrase “reason to believe,” when considered in the context of Payton and more generally the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, supports a probable cause standard.
  • Second, and more fundamentally, requiring that law enforcement officers have probable cause to believe their suspect resides at and is present within the dwelling before making a forced entry is the only conclusion commensurate with the constitutional protections the Supreme Court has accorded to the home.

Some of Vasquez-Algarin’s reasoning echoes that of the Sixth Circuit, both noting that on several occasions the Supreme Court has used the same “reason to believe” language from Payton “as a stand-in for ‘probable cause.’” (3d Cir. 2016).

The DC Circuit, First, Second, and Tenth Circuits have held that the standard for reasonable belief falls short of the standard for probable cause belief. The DC Circuit reasons that it is “more likely . . . that the Supreme Court in Payton used a phrase other than ‘probable cause’ because it meant something other than ‘probable cause.’” (2005). The Tenth Circuit equates probable cause requirements with calls for “actual knowledge of the suspect’s true residence.” (1999). It believes extending probable cause as the standard for a “reasonable basis” for determining that an individual “lived in the residence and . . . could be found within at the time of entry,” would “effectively make Payton a dead letter.” Valdez v. McPheters (10th Cir. 1999).

The Third Circuit claims that the Supreme Court’s choice of stand-in language undermines the DC Circuit’s conclusion that Payton’s ‘reason to believe’ language should be interpreted loosely. The Third Circuit explains that the Supreme Court’s use of “reason to believe” as a stand-in for “probably cause” indicates the Court’s belief that the standard for the two is the same.

Looking Forward

The incongruence in requirements for only arrest warrants versus arrest and search warrants creates such a fundamental constitutional discrepancy that the Supreme Court should address it soon.

For the last 36 years, courts have been left to grapple with the interpretation of the Court’s language in Payton, and the circuits seem to have pretty evenly split on the meaning of a “reasonable belief.” Until the Court addresses the standard for reasonable belief varying degrees of scrutiny will continue to be imposed on officers, and the degree of protection of an individual’s right to be secure in their home will remain grey.