Legal Briefs Come Up Short

By Monte E. Hester; Sept 2001

     The execution of an arrest warrant for a murder suspect by entering into a third party’s residence based on an anonymous tip must be supported by substantial evidence.  This evidence must indicate the subject of the warrant is a co-resident of the third party and present at the time of the entry.

      In a civil case reviewed by the Ninth Circuit, Watts v. County of Sacramento, et al, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, July 16, 2001, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on several issues.  One issue established a wrongful entry into a home and the wrongful detention of its inhabitants.

     The police were looking for murder suspect  Chris Burgess when they received an anonymous tip that Burgess was seen standing in front of a certain residence where he was now living with his girlfriend, Ms. Watts, and two small children.  The location was different than the address on the arrest warrant.

     The officers who entered the plaintiff’s home understood that Burgess was a black male, 6’1”, 200 pounds.

     Five officers went to the plaintiff’s house with guns drawn and knocked on the door.  The door was answered by a person named Christopher Pryor dressed only in boxer shorts.  Pryor generally fit the description of Chris Burgess.  When Mr. Pryor responded affirmatively to being asked if he was Chris, he was put on the floor on his knees and handcuffed.  A “protective sweep” was done which resulted in the finding of Ms. Watts and her two children who were then held under guard in a bedroom.  After about 30 minutes the officers determined they had the wrong man. They explained the mistake, left, and then were sued for various torts including Section 1983 claims.

      The police felt their actions should be excused stating they had a reasonable belief that the suspect was present in and a co-resident of the plaintiff’s house.

     The appellate court said that it could not be said as a matter of law that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that Pryor was Burgess.

     The court, in making this holding and dealing with other issues, stated that the tipster was not identified, no address verification took place, and that Pryor answering the door of his girlfriend’s house in boxer shorts did not establish a reasonable belief that he lived there.

     Briefly, the proof and reasoning comes up short.