United States v. Jack Palmer Vaneaton

Opinion by Judge TROTT. Dissent by Judge TASHIMA.

John Vaneaton 1 was arrested on September 9, 1992, while standing just inside the open door of his motel room in Bend, Oregon. He was arrested without a warrant by officers of the Bend Police Department. He concedes that the police who arrested him for receiving stolen property had probable cause to do so, but he contends that the warrant-less arrest violated the rule of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), a rule ordinarily requiring police to obtain a warrant before arresting a suspect inside his home, or in this case, inside his motel room.

We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2). We affirm the district court’s denial of Vaneaton’s motion to suppress a revolver found in his motel room in connection with his arrest. This revolver was used to secure his conditional plea of guilty to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm.

I

On August 25, 1992, officers of the Portland Police Bureau arrested Vaneaton in Portland, Oregon on outstanding no-bail warrants charging him with a parole violation and contempt of court. He had failed…

dissenting:

. I respectfully dissent.

The majority holds that police officers, acting with, probable cause, but without a warrant, may arrest a citizen inside his or her home, merely because 'that citizen opens the door in response to their knock. This result is flatly contrary to Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment “prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest.” Id. at 576 , 100 S.Ct. at 1375 .

In Payton , the Court drew a bright line at the physical entrance to the home, stating:

Id. at 589-90 , 100 S.Ct. at 1381-82 (citation omitted). In concluding that “seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable,” id. at 586 , 100 S.Ct. at 1380 , the Court left open only two ways for the government to overcome that presumption: a showing of exigent circumstances or a showing of consent to the entry. 1 On the record below, the government failed to make a showing of either.

The record does not indicate, and the majority does not contend, that Vaneaton gave his consent for the…

49 F.3d 1423 63 USLW 2624 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Palmer VANEATON, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-30387. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 15, 1994. Decided March 13, 1995. Bryan Lessley, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Eugene, OR, for defendant-appellant. Jeffrey Kent, Asst. U.S. Atty., Eugene, OR, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before: THOMPSON and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and TASHIMA, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge TROTT. Dissent by Judge TASHIMA. TROTT, Circuit Judge: 1 John Vaneaton 1 was arrested on September 9, 1992, while standing just inside the open door of his motel room in Bend, Oregon. He was arrested without a warrant by officers of the Bend Police Department. He concedes that the police who arrested him for receiving stolen property had probable cause to do so, but he contends that the warrantless arrest violated the rule of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), a rule ordinarily requiring police to obtain a warrant before arresting a suspect inside his home, or in this case, inside his motel room.…