The case, U.S. v. Kevin Patrick Daws,involves sheriff’s deputies in Henderson County, Tennessee who conducted
a warrantless search of Kevin Daws’ home based on a public safety
issue. The question was whether the threat posed by Daws justified the
search of the house, something the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately
decided it did.
The incident began after a home invasion in 2010. Daws had smashed through
a window of an acquaintance’s house, shoving a shotgun in the man’s
face while demanding cash. Before leaving, Daws told the victim that if
he ever called the police Daws would kill him. Later that same night Daws
invaded the home of yet another acquaintance and demanded that the man
store his shotgun and money, yet again insisting that if the victim informed
police of Daws’ actions that Daws would return and kill the man.
Unsurprisingly, both men called the police that night and reported the
incidents. One of the responding officers had previously worked as a correctional
officer at a prison where Daws served time for aggravated burglary and
remembered hearing how Daws had fired a weapon in his front yard and held
up a gas station attendant at gunpoint. Based on the two incidents that
had occurred earlier that evening and the background knowledge of the
officer, the deputies decided it was best to arrest Daws as soon as possible
and to do so carefully, calling for backup and to put on body armor.
After arriving at the house, the officers noticed an accomplice on the
front porch crying, talking on the phone about how he and Daws had done
something bad and would be going to jail as a result. The officers arrested
the man who informed them that Daws was inside and asleep. The officers
then took this as an opportunity to move in without possible armed resistance,
and entered through an open back door and found Daws asleep in the living
room. After detaining Daws, a sweep of the house turned up the shotgun
used in the earlier home invasions.
Daws was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, ultimately pleading guilty and being sentenced to 210 months in prison. Daws decided to appeal the district court’ decision, arguing the evidence found in the house should have been suppressed due to the lack of a warrant.
The Sixth Circuit, however, was not convinced. Instead, the Court walked
through all the reasons why the officers were justified in entering Daws’
home immediately, without the delay of seeking a warrant. Given Daws’
behavior that evening, his prior instances of violence, threats to others
and his ability to escape into the wilderness around his house, the Sixth
Circuit decided that the situation presented a case where there was potential
for injury to the officers and thus there was a need for swift action.
The Court agreed that waiting to get a warrant would have heightened the
risk that Daws would act on the threats or, at the very least, escape.
The Sixth Circuit found that the Fourth Amendment does not require that
police ignore real risks of a shootout or of a suspect’s escape
and can instead take action if there is a reason to do so. In this case,
Daws’ own behavior justified quick action on the part of the officers
and thus no warrant was necessary before entering Daws’ home.
See Our Related Blog Posts: