Cops With Arrest Warrant Need Probable Cause of Residence and Presence

US v. Brinkley: Police officers had a warrant for Brinkley's arrest in Charlotte, NC. In looking for where he might be found, officer found one address where there was a water bill in his name and a second address where some earlier legal documents had been sent to him. The same database that provided that information, however, showed numerous other addresses with which Brinkley was associated. Research on social media led officers to believe Brinkley was dating Chisolm, who was also associated with the second address. Therefore, officers concluded that is where Brinkley was living, although one officer later admitted that it was "common" for people like Brinkley "to have more than one place where they will stay the night." 

Officers went to that address, allegedly to surveil it to see if Brinkley came or went, but eventually went and knocked on the door. Chisolm answered the door. Behind her in the apartment was another woman who was folding laundry. Chisolm denied that Brinkley was there, but both women were nervous and officers hear sounds of movement in a back room. Five officers entered the apartment and found Brinkley in the back, executing the arrest warrant and eventually locating drugs and firearms. Brinkley unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence found after the arrest and entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit reversed the district court and held that it should have granted the motion to suppress. At issue, primarily, was the standard to apply when officers entered a home to execute a valid arrest warrant. That analysis requires two steps: is there reason to believe that (1) the location is the defendant's residence and (2) that he will be home at the time the officers enter. Courts are split as to whether "reason to believe" means officers must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause on those issues. The court concluded that probable cause was required and that the officers in this case did not have sufficient evidence to support it. 

Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that reasonable suspicion was the proper standard but that, even under the higher standard of probable cause, the officers acted appropriately in this case.