The case, U.S. v. Kevin Patrick Daws, involves sheriff’s
deputies in Henderson County, Tennessee who conducted a warrantless search of
Kevin Daws’ home based on a public safety issue. The question was whether the
threat posed by Daws justified the search of the house, something the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately decided it did.
The incident began after a home
invasion in 2010. Daws had smashed through a window of an acquaintance’s house,
shoving a shotgun in the man’s face while demanding cash. Before leaving, Daws
told the victim that if he ever called the police Daws would kill him. Later
that same night Daws invaded the home of yet another acquaintance and demanded
that the man store his shotgun and money, yet again insisting that if the
victim informed police of Daws’ actions that Daws would return and kill the
man.
Unsurprisingly, both men called
the police that night and reported the incidents. One of the responding officers
had previously worked as a correctional officer at a prison where Daws served
time for aggravated burglary and remembered hearing how Daws had fired a weapon
in his front yard and held up a gas station attendant at gunpoint. Based on the
two incidents that had occurred earlier that evening and the background
knowledge of the officer, the deputies decided it was best to arrest Daws as
soon as possible and to do so carefully, calling for backup and to put on body
armor.
After arriving at the house, the
officers noticed an accomplice on the front porch crying, talking on the phone
about how he and Daws had done something bad and would be going to jail as a
result. The officers arrested the man who informed them that Daws was inside
and asleep. The officers then took this as an opportunity to move in without
possible armed resistance, and entered through an open back door and found Daws
asleep in the living room. After detaining Daws, a sweep of the house turned up
the shotgun used in the earlier home invasions.
Daws was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, ultimately pleading guilty and being sentenced to 210 months in prison. Daws decided to appeal the district court’ decision, arguing the evidence found in the house should have been suppressed due to the lack of a warrant.
The Sixth Circuit, however, was
not convinced. Instead, the Court walked through all the reasons why the
officers were justified in entering Daws’ home immediately, without the delay
of seeking a warrant. Given Daws’ behavior that evening, his prior instances of
violence, threats to others and his ability to escape into the wilderness
around his house, the Sixth Circuit decided that the situation presented a case
where there was potential for injury to the officers and thus there was a need
for swift action. The Court agreed that waiting to get a warrant would have
heightened the risk that Daws would act on the threats or, at the very least,
escape.
The Sixth Circuit found that the
Fourth Amendment does not require that police ignore real risks of a shootout
or of a suspect’s escape and can instead take action if there is a reason to do
so. In this case, Daws’ own behavior justified quick action on the part of the
officers and thus no warrant was necessary before entering Daws’ home.
See
Our Related Blog Posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment