Tenth Circuit Holds that a Static Call to 911 Does Not Justify Police Entry into a Home

 

After receiving a static 911 call from the residence of Joseph Martinez in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, two law enforcement officers were dispatched to Mr. Martinez's house. Officers inspected the premises and saw nothing to indicate that anyone was present and there was no sign of forced entry. Officers climbed the stairs to a second-story balcony and entered Mr. Martinez's home through an unlocked door. While conducting a sweep of the home to ensure that there was no emergency, the officers discovered drug paraphernalia and pornography which appeared to depict minors. Mr. Martinez was arrested when he returned home and made subsequent admissions to a detective. However, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression of the evidence against Mr. Martinez because law enforcement officers did not enter his home lawfully.

On April 14, 2009, the Bernalillo County Emergency Communication Center received a 911 call from the home of Mr. Martinez. The dispatcher heard only static on the line. The dispatcher attempted to return the call to Mr. Martinez's home but again heard static, indicating a problem with the line. Such static calls can be caused by electrical problems or unusual weather, a fact that dispatchers and law enforcement officers are broadly aware of. Nonetheless, Sergeant Robert Lind and Deputy Nathan Kmatz of the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office were dispatched to Mr. Martinez's home.

The call was not treated as a priority call. The officers were aware that the call had been classified as an "open-line or hangup." Officers obeyed the speed limit while responding to the call and did not activate their lights or sirens. Twenty-six minutes elapsed between the initial call and the arrival of law enforcement officers.
When officers arrived at the scene, the gate to Mr. Martinez's rural property was closed, but the officers entered via an opening near the gate. The officers knocked on the front door, inspected the perimeter of the home, and looked into the house from the windows. There were no signs of forced entry and the officers neither heard nor saw any evidence that anyone was inside. The officers "then walked up an exterior staircase which led to a second-floor balcony. Off of the balcony, they found a closed but unlocked sliding glass door into the house. Through the glass, they could see some electronics boxes near the door and they noticed that the house looked disheveled. The officers opened the sliding glass door and again announced their presence. They received no response."

The two law enforcement officers then conducted a sweep of the house to ensure that no one was "injured, unconscious, or deceased." Drug paraphernalia and pornography which appeared to depict minors was discovered during the sweep. After approximately five minutes in the home, the officers completed the sweep, exited the home, and secured the residence.

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Martinez arrived at his home. He was taken into custody, Mirandized, and agreed to speak with a detective. Information gained during the sweep and Mr. Martinez's subsequent admissions were later used in criminal proceedings against Mr. Martinez.

At trial in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Mr. Martinez moved to suppress the evidence as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court "found that the initial warrantless search of Mr. Martinez's home was unconstitutional because it was not justified by the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement," and that "the taint of the illegal search was not attenuated at the time Mr. Martinez made his confession and his statements were therefore fruit of the poisonous tree." Thus, the district court suppressed the evidence against Mr. Martinez.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the government argued that the warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances. Specifically, exigent circumstances were created by "(1) the static-only 911 call from the residence; (2) the ‘disheveled' appearance of the house; (3) the unlocked door on the backside second floor of the house; and (4) the electronics boxes just inside the unlocked door."
The court of appeals rejected the government's arguments. The court of appeals noted that although a significant portion of the combined "open-line or hangup" calls are emergencies, a static call is substantially different. An open line can convey considerable information, like the sound of a scream or a gunshot in the background. A hangup "inform[s] the police that someone physically dialed 9-1-1 . . . and either hung up or was disconnected before he or she could speak to the operator. An unanswered return call gives further information pointing to a probability . . . that after the initial call was placed the caller or the phone has somehow been incapacitated." A static call, however, can be caused by electrical or meteorological anomalies and does not tend to convey exigency. Thus a static call "cannot justify warrantless entry by police with no substantiating evidence of danger, injury, or foul play."

Although the government also argued that the officers had a reasonable belief that a robbery was in progress based on the disheveled appearance of the home, unlocked door, and boxes of electronics, the court of appeals refused to consider this argument because the government failed to raise the issue at trial in district court. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence against Mr. Martinez.

The case is United States v. Martinez and can be read by clicking here.