Probable Cause To Believe That Subject of Arrest Warrant Is Inside Third Person's Residence Justifies Entrance Therein

State v. deLottinville, Minn.Ct.App., 3/21/2016.  Officers came to D.R.'s place with an arrest warrant for Ms. deLottinville.   While one cop was at the front door chatting up D.R.'s Mom, another officer was around the back peeking through the glass patio door. This officer swears that he recognized Ms. deLottinville inside so he went in through the patio door and arrested her.  That officer also saw marijuana and a bong in plain view.  More cops returned to D.R.'s place later with a search warrant and found more drugs. The state charged Ms. deLottinville with possession of those drugs.

Ms. deLottinville challenged her arrest inside D.R.'s place.  The trial court concluded that her arrest had been illegal, that as a guest she had a reasonable expectation of privacy that could only be overcome by a search warrant.  As a consequence the drugs  had to be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal arrest.  The state appealed.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) says that a valid arrest warrant justifies entry into the home of the subject of the warrant. Payton, however, has never been extended to permit entry into a third person's home in order to arrest the person named in the arrest warrant.  The Minnesota Supreme Court has mused that in that situation the officers may need a search warrant but it wasn't really the holding of the case. State v. Patricelli, 324 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. 1982).

Amazingly, given the officer's testimony that he not only saw Ms. deLottinville inside D.R.'s place but recognized her, the Eighth Circuit has already answered the question presented here.  United States v. Clifford, 664 F.2d 1090 (8th Cir. 1981).  Officers went to a third person's residence with an arrest warrant for Clifford.  A cop swore he saw and recognized Clifford inside so he went in and arrested him.  The Eighth Circuit said that even assuming that Clifford had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a third person's home, the officer's knowledge of Clifford's presence inside the third person's home justified entry to execute the arrest warrant for Clifford.  Just swap out Clifford for deLottinville - which is exactly what the court of appeals did - and you're done:

[W]hen police have probable cause to believe that the subject of a valid arrest warrant is present as a visitor in the residence of another, police may enter that residence to effectuate the arrest under that warrant without violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the person named therein.

So, for goodness sake, keep the shades drawn and the drapes pulled.