U.S.A v. Winchenbach

• Decision Date: 02 November 1999
• Docket Number: No. 99-1202,99-1202
• Citation: 197 F.3d 548
• Parties: (1st Cir. 1999) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RALPH WINCHENBACH, JR., Defendant, Appellant. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 548

197 F.3d 548 (1st Cir. 1999)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. RALPH WINCHENBACH, JR., Defendant, Appellant.

No. 99-1202

United States Court of Appeals, for the First Circuit.

Heard Nov. 2, 1999.

Decided December 8, 1999.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE. Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Mary A. Davis, with whom Tisdale & Davis, P.A. was on brief, for appellant.

F. Mark Terison, Senior Litigation Counsel, with whom Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

This appeal raises two important issues. One requires us to determine for the first time whether the police, equipped with a search warrant but not an arrest warrant, may enter the home and immediately arrest a resident on the basis of previously acquired probable cause. The second requires us to plot the line of demarcation between two closely related but poorly understood rules of evidence, Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) and Fed. R. Evid. 613(b). Concluding, as we do, that the arrest and the search conducted incident thereto were constitutionally permissible and that the trial court's admission of the challenged extrinsic evidence passes muster, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

We offer only a synopsis of the evidentiary record, borrowing liberally from the district court's more detailed rendition. See United States v. Winchenbach, 31 F. Supp. 2d 159, 160-62 (D. Me. 1998). We later supplement our account in the course of discussing specific assignments of error.

Over a period of approximately five months in mid-1997, the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA), working in concert with a confidential informant named James Holmes, fomented a series of "controlled" drug transactions. The first occurred in April. Acting on the MDEA's instructions, Holmes gave Wendy Spinney (a target of the probe) $250 in exchange for Spinney's promise to deliver cocaine. Although Spinney told Holmes that she would procure the cocaine in Rockland, agents followed her to the Ralph Wink Road, a dead-end street in Waldoboro. She disappeared for a brief interval, but the agents then spied her returning from the Ralph Wink Road and trailed her to a motel (where she delivered the cocaine to Holmes).

On May 30, Holmes called Spinney to arrange another purchase. He then went to her abode and gave her $250. Although Spinney again told Holmes that she would go to Rockland to obtain drugs, agents followed her to Duck Puddle Road (a street leading to Genther Road, which accesses the Ralph Wink Road). A short time later, the agents spotted her coming from the direction of the Ralph Wink Road. Upon returning home, Spinney called Holmes and informed him that she could not get any cocaine.¹

On June 5, Holmes again called Spinney and arranged to buy an "eight-ball" of cocaine. He visited her residence -- as was typically the case, the MDEA chauffeured him there -- and in the ensuing conversation, Spinney identified her supplier as "Junior" and specified that he was based in Waldoboro. This time, the agents tracked Spinney to a trailer on the Ralph Wink Road in which defendant-appellant Ralph Winchenbach, Jr. resided with his quondam paramour, Arlene Jones (formerly Arlene Winchenbach, by virtue of her earlier marriage to one of the appellant's brothers).² Spinney spent nearly ten minutes inside the trailer and then returned directly to her home. When Holmes arrived, she gave him the promised eight-ball of cocaine.

On September 3, the MDEA again set Holmes into motion. On this occasion, he gave Spinney $250 at her dwelling. She said that she would go "to Duck Puddle" to retrieve the cocaine and that her supplier was waiting for her "at Junior's house." Agents followed Spinney and a companion, later identified as William Holmstrom, to Duck Puddle Road. They were last seen heading in the direction of the Ralph Wink Road. After a ten-minute interval, an agent observed the pair traveling from the direction of the Ralph Wink Road. At that point, the officers arrested both Spinney and Holmstrom. Spinney had cocaine in her purse.

Upon interrogation, Spinney told the agents that she bought the cocaine for $200 from "Junior" just prior to her arrest and that "Junior" lived in a trailer on the Ralph Wink Road. She added that she had purchased cocaine from "Junior" at his trailer on about 30 occasions and referred to him at one point as "Junior Winchenbach." When asked whether "Junior" was Ralph Winchenbach, Jr., Spinney replied that she thought so.

The MDEA promptly applied for a warrant to search, inter alia, "[t]he Ralph Winchenbach Jr and Arlene Winchenbach residence in Waldoboro, located on the Ralph Wink [R]oad box # 277" as well as "[a]ny and all people present and arriving at the residence at the time of the search, including but not limited to Ralph Winchenbach Jr and Arlene Winchenbach." The affidavit supporting the warrant described the location and appearance of the trailer at some length and stated unequivocally that it was the same trailer that Spinney had described to the arresting officers. A state magistrate granted the application and issued a warrant that authorized a search of the premises.³

The same evening, a team of officers went to the appellant's trailer on the Ralph Wink Road to execute the search warrant. When the appellant opened the door, the officers immediately entered the trailer, arrested him, brought him outside, and searched him. They discovered over $1,000 on his person, including $80 of the "buy money" that the MDEA had given to Holmes earlier that day.

A federal grand jury indicted the appellant for distribution of cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the arrest and the ensuing search of his person, noting that the officers had probable cause to effect an arrest and that they were lawfully present in the appellant's home. See Winchenbach, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 165-67. A petit jury subsequently found the appellant guilty, and the district court imposed a 37-month incarcerative sentence. This appeal followed. In it, Winchenbach challenges both the denial of his motion to suppress and an evidentiary ruling. We address these questions seriatim.

II. THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The appellant argues that his arrest was unlawful and that, therefore, the district court should have suppressed the evidence gleaned from the search of his person. The second half of this argument depends on the validity of the first: it is settled beyond peradventure that a search of an individual's person made incident to a valid arrest is itself valid, despite the absence of an arrest warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-73 (1969). Put another way, "[t]he fact of a lawful arrest, standing alone, authorizes a search." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 35 (1979). Hence, we turn directly to the legitimacy of the arrest.

The appellant does not contest the bona fides of the warrant that authorized the search of his dwelling but, rather, asseverates that a search warrant, unaccompanied by an arrest warrant, can never support an arrest of an individual in his own home. Building on this foundation, he posits that the fruits of the subsequent search of his person must be suppressed. The government responds that because the search warrant enabled the officers lawfully to enter the home and because probable cause existed to believe that the appellant had committed a crime, the officers had a right to effect an arrest without first pausing to secure a separate arrest warrant. The district court adhered to the government's view and refused suppression. See Winchenbach, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 167. We assess its conclusions of law de novo but scrutinize its factual findings only for clear error. See United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 565 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 975 (1st Cir. 1994). "'[T]he decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to . . . probable cause' presents a mixed question of law and fact which is subject to plenary review." United States v. Meade, 110 F.3d 190, 193 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996)).

The appellant's primary position, purportedly grounded in the Supreme Court's decision in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 (1980), is that law enforcement officers can never arrest a person in his home unless they first obtain an arrest warrant. But Payton does not sweep so broadly. To be sure, the Payton Court held on particular facts that officers who did not possess an arrest warrant could not enter the defendant's home to arrest him. See id. at 590. As subsequent cases demonstrate, however, Payton does not purport to declare an absolute rule. One recognized exception involves exigent circumstances. See, e.g., Hegarty v. Somerset County, 53 F.3d 1367, 1374 (1st Cir. 1995). Another applies to parolees and persons on probation. See, e.g., United States v. Cardona, 903 F.2d 60, 67, 69 (1st Cir. 1990). A third, the precise scope of which is here at issue, permits the police to arrest an individual in his home, without an arrest warrant, as long as they are lawfully on the premises (by reason, say, of a search warrant) and probable cause exists. See, e.g., Mahlberg v. Mentzer, 968 F.2d 772, 775 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Houston, 892 F.2d 696, 701-02 (8th Cir. 1989); Jones v. City of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988). In these cases, the police discovered the evidence that gave rise to probable cause during a lawful search of the premises and then arrested the occupant. We have found one case, United States v. Price, 888 F.2d 1206 (...