Home Entry & Probable Cause to Motions for Summary Judgement

          Here we are, embarking on our last week of October 2020! Can you believe we are almost to the end of this semester? You have made it this far, just a few weeks less than two months, and you’ll be down another semester of law school! This week, I have an interesting case for you to read! It’s a civil case about a home entry that took place and an argument over whether the home entry went against the Plaintiff’s constitutional right. Happy Reading!

        This case arises out of a couple of Motions for Summary Judgement that were filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the Plaintiff’s claim that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his apartment without a warrant and conducting a search. Briefly, a detective (detective 1), employed by the Worcester Police Department, had been investigating the Plaintiff for 15 months and conducted about 12 controlled purchases of cocaine from him through a reliable confidential informant (CI). 

        Thereafter, on August 28, 2014, another detective (detective 2) working for the Worcester Police Department saw a tall, thin man entering the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The police officer testified that in the vehicle, he could see the men engage in conversation, “while fixated on something between them” and observed them, “reaching towards each other”. Based on the detective’s training and experience, “his impression was that he just witnessed a hand-to hand street level drug transaction”. Upon seeing this, the detective informed other police officers of this transaction. A short while after, the tall man exited the vehicle and walked away. 

    The detective went out and approached the tall man to which the tall man, “made a quick throwing gesture behind his back with his right hand”. The detective, upon retrieving the item, saw it was a, “small off-white colored chunk in a small knotted plastic bag, which he believed to be crack cocaine. The detective frisked the tall, thin man and according to the man, he said he purchased a rock of cocaine for $40 with some friends earlier in the day and had intended to smoke it. The man also admitted that when he saw the detective coming towards him, he took it out of his pocket and threw it away.

        Thereafter, detective 2 stopped the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was at an intersection by then, and ordered the Plaintiff to put his car in park and to get out. Officers removed Plaintiff from his car and ordered him to the ground. Plaintiff refused and the officers started searching him. The officers found $40 in his hand, $122.00 in his wallet, and two cell phones. Plaintiff was placed under arrest for distribution of a class B substance. The police provided the Plaintiff his Miranda warnings which the Plaintiff later denied he was ever read. The police said Plaintiff answered affirmatively in response to the warnings and asked Plaintiff where he lived. Plaintiff gave the police his address. Thereafter, the police did a pat down of Plaintiff to which no drugs were detected. The Plaintiff said that the police stripped him down and made him bend over and then cough. The police then took the Plaintiff’s house keys.

        Upon arrival at the Plaintiff’s house, the police did a “protective sweep” of the place to make sure there was no one inside who could destroy the evidence. The police said no drawers were open, furniture wasn’t moved, and mattresses were not lifted. However, Plaintiff claims that his apartment was a mess and drawers were open. The police stated they were in the apartment for only a few minutes and secured the apartment while awaiting a search warrant. Ultimately, however, they did not obtain a search warrant because prior to searching the Plaintiff’s apartment, they saw the Plaintiff’s son leaving in his car and believed that any potential evidence would have been taken with him or destroyed. Plaintiff alleges the police were in his apartment for about 25 minutes, not just a few minutes. The police officers applied to the district court for the issuance of a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff for the distribution of cocaine. The Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that he was arrested without probable cause, that his residence was illegally searched, and that he was subjected to an unlawful body cavity search. 

            With regards to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement, the judge ruled, “Although it is a close call, on this record, I find that there is a genuine issue of material fact both as to whether the Defendants had probable cause to believe evidence of a crime could be found inside the apartment and as to whether the entry to the Plaintiff’s apartment was necessary to prevent the imminent loss of such evidence…” Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement was denied. With regards to the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement, the judge ruled that, “Even if a jury were to find that probable cause and exigent circumstances existed such that a warrantless entry into the Plaintiff’s apartment was not violative of the Fourth Amendment, taking the facts in the light most favorable to [Plaintiff], there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the search exceeded the scope of what would have been proper under the circumstances”. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement on this claim was also denied. 

Johnson v. City of Worcester, et al., Civil Action Number 17-40103-TSH

Lawyers Weekly Volume 49, No. 38.  

For Those of you who missed Blog Contributor, Eddie Street's Post last week, Check it out here!
https://mslawcommunityblog.blogspot.com/2020/10/1l-legal-writing-courses-dos-and-donts.html

What are Your Thoughts on This Case? Who Do You Think Should Prevail?