United States v. Baker

• Decision Date: 24 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-5636,19-5636
• Citation: 976 F.3d 636
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyslen J. BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

976 F.3d 636

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Tyslen J. BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-5636

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: September 24, 2020

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After learning of an outstanding arrest warrant for Tyslen Baker, a police officer entered his residence to arrest him and spotted drugs and a firearm in a back room. Baker moved to suppress this incriminating evidence on the ground that the police had violated the Fourth Amendment in two ways. Baker first argued that the officer who executed the arrest warrant subjected him to an "unreasonable" "seizure" by entering that back room without his consent. Baker next argued that the separate officer who requested the arrest warrant from a state judge relied on an affidavit lacking "probable cause" that Baker had committed a crime.

We hold that the district court correctly denied Baker's motion to suppress this evidence. The officer who arrested Baker acted reasonably in monitoring his movements during the arrest. See Washington v. Chrisman , 455 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 70 L.Ed.2d 778 (1982). And the affidavit supporting the warrant contained enough of a connection between Baker and a crime that the officers could reasonably rely on the state judge's probable-cause finding. See United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).

Whether or not probable cause existed, therefore, the warrant should not trigger the exclusionary rule. Id. And while Leon ’s exception to the exclusionary rule arose in the context of a search warrant allegedly lacking probable cause, we think the Court would extend its basic rules to arrest warrants too. Cf. Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135, 137, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009). We thus affirm.

I

Officer Zacharey Render worked for the police department in Madisonville, a small city in western Kentucky. As part of his regular routine as a patrol officer, Render would review Kentucky's e-warrant system and attempt to serve outstanding arrest warrants on individuals located within Madisonville city limits. On the evening of January 25, 2017, Render worked a night shift from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Near the start of his shift, Render perused Kentucky's e-warrant system for new arrest warrants. The system showed a new warrant to arrest "Tyslen Jamar Baker" for receiving stolen property and identified Baker's address as "302 North Kentucky" in Madisonville.

The previous day, a judge in a neighboring county had issued this warrant on the ground that Baker had received a stolen Nextbook tablet in violation of Kentucky Revised Statutes § 514.110. The affidavit supporting this warrant read in full:

The Affiant, Alan King (Providence Police Department 3962), states that on 4/19/2015 in Webster County, Kentucky, the above-named Defendant unlawfully: Receiving Stolen Property. On 4/19/2015 a Nextbook tablet, and several other items were taken from the residence at 601 St. Bernard Street in Providence, KY. The tablet turned up pawned at River City Pawn in Madisonville, KY. An interview with the subject who pawned the tablet revealed that the tablet was purchased in Madisonville, KY from a Tyslen Baker. The stolen tablet was recovered from the pawn shop in Madisonville.

When Officer Render executes a warrant listed in Kentucky's e-warrant system, he typically locates the named individual, confirms the individual's identity, takes the individual into custody, and retrieves the warrant to read to the individual. He does not review the affidavit supporting the warrant beforehand to ensure that probable cause exists for the arrest. He followed his usual practice in this case and did not review the affidavit underlying Baker's warrant.

Render contacted a fellow officer, Daniel Knelson, and the two met to arrest Baker at the listed address, which appeared to be a hybrid residence and pawnshop-type business. As the officers approached the business's front door, a neon sign was flashing "open." Through the store's windows, Render could see merchandise inside and a man walking around the store's register area. Render tried to open the door, but it was locked. He asked Officer Knelson to check the side door, thinking it may be unlocked given the sign indicating that the store was open. Render also pushed a doorbell, and the man came to the front door and voluntarily let him in. Render made a comment about the cold weather as the two exchanged pleasantries. The man returned to the store's register area. Knelson quickly followed Render through the front door.

Once inside, Render asked the man if he was "Mr. Baker." The man said that he was, and Render requested his driver's license for verification. Madisonville officers typically ask for identification when they execute an arrest warrant to confirm with central dispatch that the warrant remains active. In response to this request, Baker walked through a door near the register, which signaled to Render that Baker needed to go to another room to get his identification. Render could not see what was beyond the door and was surprised by how fast Baker moved. According to Render, officers executing arrest warrants should always maintain visual contact with arrestees to ensure they are not getting firearms. To keep watch of Baker, Render followed him through the door without asking for permission. The door led to a kitchen area and then another door led to what Render described as "an office, slash, bedroom, entertainment area" where Baker retrieved his wallet.

As Baker was handing Render his identification, Render noticed a rifle sitting in the corner of the room. Render asked Baker if he was a convicted felon. When Baker confirmed he was, Render handcuffed him. Around this time, Render also noticed jars of marijuana in plain view. He verified with dispatch that Baker had an active arrest warrant, and Officer Knelson secured the firearm. Coordinating with his supervisor, Render left a short time later to secure a search warrant for Baker's residence. Knelson searched Baker incident to his arrest and found crack cocaine in his pocket. After Render obtained the search warrant, officers found more crack cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and firearms at this location.

The government indicted Baker on two drug-related counts, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Baker qualified as an armed career criminal, see id. § 924(e)(1), so his felon-in-possession charge triggered a 15-year mandatory-minimum sentence. Before trial Baker moved to suppress all evidence seized from his home. He argued both that the affidavit supporting his arrest warrant failed to establish probable cause that he had committed a crime and that he did not consent to the officers entering and moving around his residence. The district court denied the motion. It held that the state judge had properly issued the warrant because the affidavit "provided probable cause to believe that stolen property had been purchased from Baker." Even if the warrant lacked probable cause, the court added, the exclusionary rule should not apply because of the exception to that rule announced in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The court reasoned that Officers Render and Knelson had "entered Baker's home on an ‘objectively reasonable reliance’ on a facially valid arrest warrant."

After the district court's ruling, the parties entered into a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). Baker agreed to plead guilty to all three counts. The government agreed that Baker should receive a 240-month sentence and that he could appeal the district court's denial of his suppression motion. The court accepted Baker's conditional plea and imposed a 240-month sentence.

Baker appeals the suppression ruling. We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Carpenter , 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

II

The Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. When interpreting the amendment's "Reasonableness Clause," the Supreme Court has distinguished arrests in public places from those in private homes. A warrantless arrest in public qualifies as a reasonable "seizure" so long as officers have probable cause that the arrestee committed a crime. United States v. Watson , 423 U.S. 411, 417–24, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). If, by contrast, officers force their way into an individual's home to make the arrest, they generally must get an arrest warrant. Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573, 602–03, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). The need for a warrant triggers the Fourth Amendment's "Warrant Clause," which also requires "probable cause." See id. at 602, 100 S.Ct. 1371.

This case implicates two legal questions about arrest warrants. First: Did Officer Render's execution of the arrest warrant comport with the Reasonableness Clause? Second: Did the state judge properly find that probable cause existed under the Warrant Clause and, if not, should the exclusionary rule apply to the evidence uncovered as a result of the arrest?

A. Execution of the Arrest Warrant

We start with Officer Render's conduct in executing the warrant. The Supreme Court has held that "an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within." Payton , 445 U.S. at 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371. Decisions from our court and others have...