PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 07-4508
COVONTI KWA MOSES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00331-NCT)
Argued: May 16, 2008
Decided: September 2, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY,
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the
opinion, in which Judge King joined. Judge Gregory wrote an
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: John A. Dusenbury, Jr., OFFICE OF THE FED-
ERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. David Paul Folmar, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Caro-
2 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
lina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Pub-
lic Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
Following searches of two residences associated with
Covonti Kwa Moses in Greensboro, North Carolina, police
officers recovered illegal drugs and firearms. Moses pleaded
guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than five
grams of crack cocaine and to being a felon in possession of
a firearm and was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment.
With the agreement of the court, Moses reserved the right to
appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress,
challenging the searches as unconstitutional.
Moses contends on appeal that the police officers’ warrant-
less entry into the two residences was unsupported by proba-
ble cause and exigent circumstances, as claimed by the
officers, and therefore violated his Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable searches. Finding his arguments
unpersuasive in the particular circumstances of this case, we
affirm.
I
In May 2006, the Tactical Special Enforcement Team of
the Greensboro, North Carolina police department com-
menced an investigation of a local street gang known as the
"Goodfellas," which was suspected of involvement in drug
trafficking, several shootings, and other related violent
crimes. A month later, the officers apprehended the leader of
the gang, Carl Kotay Graham, who provided the officers with
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 3
substantial information about the gang’s activities and named
Moses among its members.
Graham told officers that Moses, who was already well
known to the officers from previous encounters, served as "an
enforcer-type person for the group . . . who carried guns" and
who "stash[ed] cocaine and firearms" at a residence on Cedar
Street in Greensboro, "a cream-colored duplex." Graham also
told the officers that Moses drove a "green Lincoln with tem-
porary tags." Finally, he said that Moses had firearms and a
ballistic vest in the house, as well as cocaine that he stashed
for both Graham and another member of the Goodfellas gang.
When a Greensboro police officer thereafter observed a
green Lincoln with temporary tags in front of 407 North
Cedar Street, he alerted Officer Eric Goodykoontz, who vis-
ited the location and confirmed the fact. At Officer Goo-
dykoontz’s initiative, officers set up a "perimeter" in the area
with the purpose of apprehending Moses.
While the perimeter was in place, Officer Goodykoontz
observed Moses, whom he recognized from previous encoun-
ters, and a female emerge from unit A of 407 North Cedar
Street. Moses was carrying what appeared to be shoe boxes,
which he placed in the trunk of the Lincoln, and then the two
returned to the house. Officer Goodykoontz could not, how-
ever, tell whether they entered unit A or unit B of 407 North
Cedar Street. When Officer Goodykoontz ran a computer
check on Moses, he discovered that Moses’ driver’s license
was suspended. Shortly thereafter, Moses and his female com-
panion returned to the Lincoln and drove away. Goodykoontz
notified the other officers in the perimeter that Moses had left
the premises and was driving on a suspended license.
Officers stopped Moses approximately one block from the
Cedar Street residence. As Sergeant Tom Kroh approached
the scene, he saw "Mr. Moses outside of the car, and he look-
[ed] like he [was] dialing his phone. He [was] doing some-
4 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
thing with his phone . . . ." Sergeant Kroh asked Moses whom
he was calling, and Moses replied that he was talking to his
cousin, who lived in unit B of 407 North Cedar Street. When
Moses explained that he had just left his cousin’s house at
407-B North Cedar Street, Sergeant Kroh became concerned
that Moses had alerted someone back at his Cedar Street resi-
dence about the traffic stop, and he ordered Moses to hang up
the phone. The officers placed Moses under arrest for driving
on a suspended license and found four grams of marijuana on
his person. Sergeant Kroh advised Officer Goodykoontz, who
had remained at the Cedar Street location, that he believed
Moses may have alerted someone at the residence that the
police had stopped him. Kroh then returned, with Moses in
custody, to the Cedar Street residence.
Officer Goodykoontz knocked on the door of unit A, from
which he had seen Moses emerge with the shoe boxes, but no
one came to the door. The windows were blocked so that he
could not see inside. At the same time, Sergeant Kroh and
another officer knocked on the door of unit B, which was
attached to unit A, and Catressa Moore came to the door.
Moore admitted to the officers that Moses was her cousin, but
she denied that he had just been visiting her, saying that he
lived in unit A. Moore "further stated that she hated [Moses]
and had nothing to do with him." Moore then began yelling
and screaming at the officers, without provocation, creating
such a loud commotion that Officer Goodykoontz heard it on
the other side of the house while investigating unit A. Moore
eventually gave consent to the officers to search her unit B to
determine whether there was an interior access between the
two units. The officers discovered none.
Officer Goodykoontz confronted Moses, who was inside a
police vehicle in front of the Cedar Street residence, about his
connection to unit A. Moses insisted that he had nothing to do
with unit A and had been visiting his cousin in unit B.
Because Goodykoontz had personally observed Moses come
out of unit A, he and Sergeant Kroh decided to try Moses’
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 5
keys to determine whether a key provided access to unit A.
When a key fit the lock on unit A, the officers "felt like [they]
had enough for a search warrant on the residence." Sergeant
Kroh and Officer Goodykoontz, however, were concerned
that someone might be inside of unit A in the process of
destroying evidence and also presenting a threat to the safety
of the officers as they waited outside the house for a search
warrant. Their concern arose from Moses’ behavior in making
the phone call during the traffic stop, his cousin’s behavior in
creating a loud commotion, the presence of a gold-colored
vehicle parked in front of the house, the officers’ inability to
see inside unit A, and Moses’ false denial of association with
that unit. Sergeant Kroh, Officer Goodykoontz, and two other
officers therefore decided to enter unit A to secure the prem-
ises and any evidence therein while they obtained a search
warrant.
During a protective sweep, the officers found no one inside
unit A, but they observed, in plain view, residue that they
field tested and identified as crack cocaine, as well as a mari-
juana cigarette butt and some photos of Moses on the dresser
in the bedroom. They exited approximately three minutes
after entering, leaving officers on the front porch to keep the
unit secure.
Based on the total information that the officers had, includ-
ing the statements given them by Graham, the officers
obtained a search warrant and conducted a search of unit A,
where they recovered, among other things, a .44 magnum
revolver.
While at the scene at 407 North Cedar Street, Officer Goo-
dykoontz received a call from another officer who had been
interrogating Graham. Graham had said that "Moses was sell-
ing crack cocaine out of a residence on Pearson Street." Con-
necting that information with an anonymous CrimeStoppers
tip earlier in the week, which complained of a black male sub-
ject driving a green Lincoln and selling crack cocaine at 1309
6 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
South Pearson Street, as well as the officers’ subsequent
observation of a green Lincoln at the same address, Sergeant
Kroh and several officers took Moses’ keys to 1309 South
Pearson Street and found that one of them opened the door.
Again concerned that "if anybody was inside . . . they would
be aware of [the officers’] presence," Sergeant Kroh autho-
rized entry into the house. In a search that lasted less than a
minute, the officers confirmed that no one was present in the
home and observed in plain view digital scales and crack
cocaine residue.
Based on the information obtained from 1309 South Pear-
son Street, as well as the information learned earlier, the offi-
cers also obtained a search warrant for 1309 South Pearson
Street. Following a search of the residence, the officers recov-
ered approximately 14 grams of crack cocaine.
Based on the crack cocaine found at the Pearson Street resi-
dence and the firearm found at the Cedar Street residence,
Moses was indicted for possession with intent to distribute
more than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 841(b)(1)(B), and for possession of a
firearm while being a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The indictment specified
that Moses had previously been convicted of felony drug
crimes in North Carolina courts in 2001 and 2002.
In a motion to suppress the evidence recovered during the
searches of the two residences, Moses contended that the
searches violated his constitutional rights because they were
warrantless entries into houses where no exigent circum-
stances existed to justify an entry without a warrant. The dis-
trict court denied Moses’ motion. With respect to the Cedar
Street residence, the court found that a reasonable officer
could have believed that exigent circumstances existed, justi-
fying the warrantless entry. But the court concluded that no
such reasonable belief could be held with respect to the Pear-
son Street residence and therefore that the warrantless entry
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 7
of that house was unlawful. The court concluded nonetheless
that the search warrant application for the Pearson Street resi-
dence contained sufficient independent evidence, untainted by
the unlawful entry, to support the magistrate judge’s finding
of probable cause and the issuance of the warrant.
Moses then pleaded guilty, conditioned on his right to
appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(a)(2).
On appeal, Moses contends: (1) that probable cause to enter
407-A North Cedar Street was lacking; (2) that no exigency
existed to justify entry into 407-A North Cedar Street without
a warrant; and (3) that the warrant application for 1309 South
Pearson Street, when stripped of evidence tainted by the
unlawful warrantless entry therein, did not contain enough
information to support a finding of probable cause.
We address each argument in turn, construing the facts in
the light most favorable to the government as the prevailing
party below, see United States v. Kimbrough, 477 F.3d 144,
147 (4th Cir. 2007), and reviewing the district court’s factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, see
id.
II
Moses contends that the Greensboro police officers lacked
probable cause to believe that when they entered the residence
at 407-A North Cedar Street, they would find contraband or
evidence of a crime. He argues that "[t]he information that
comprised the lion’s share of the ‘totality of the circum-
stances’ concerning the existence of drugs inside Apartment
407A N. Cedar St. prior to the officers’ warrantless entry con-
sisted almost exclusively of information provided to police by
Carl Kotay Graham on June 22, 2006." That information, in
Moses’ view, did not establish "a fair probability that contra-
band or evidence of a crime [would] be found" in the Cedar
8 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
Street residence. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).
Specifically, Moses points to an informal intelligence sum-
mary maintained by the Tactical Special Enforcement Team
investigating the Goodfellas gang, which documented the
interview with Graham but failed to indicate that Graham told
the officers about drugs at the Cedar Street residence. The rel-
evant entry in the summary reads as follows:
[Graham] said that Covanti [Moses] is the man with
the guns. He said that he lives on Cedar St. in a
cream colored house which is 2 houses past Belle-
meade (on the right) if driving north on Cedar. He
drives a gray Intrepid and a green Lincoln. He has
seen a .357 magnum, an SKS, and a ballistic vest
there in the past two weeks. . . . He does not sell out
of his house and lives there by himself. . . . Jerome
Monk is supplying Moses with his cocaine.
Moses argues that because the summary says nothing to indi-
cate that Moses stashed drugs at the Cedar Street residence,
the district court erred in crediting Officer Goodykoontz and
Sergeant Kroh, both of whom testified that Graham said
Moses stored drugs at the Cedar Street residence.
Moses’ argument challenges factual findings made by the
district court, and we can disturb such findings only if they
are clearly erroneous. While the district court acknowledged
that it was "certainly a fair question as to why [Moses’ stash-
ing drugs] would not have been written down" in the intelli-
gence summary, the court credited the officers’ testimony and
found as a fact that Graham "informed the police that Moses
stashed money, drugs, and guns in a cream-colored duplex
located on North Cedar Street." We owe particular deference
to the district court’s credibility findings, as the court is in a
much better position to evaluate those matters. See United
States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008); see also
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Cer-
tainly, we cannot say that the district court’s decision was
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 9
clearly erroneous when there was substantial evidence to sup-
port its conclusion.
Thus, the question is whether the evidence, which included
the officers’ testimony about what Graham said, supported a
finding of probable cause.
The determination of whether probable cause exists
depends on the totality of the circumstances and involves a
"practical, common-sense decision whether . . . there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be
found in a particular place." Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. Because
"probable cause is a fluid concept — turning on the assess-
ment of probabilities in particular factual contexts — not
readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules,"
id. at 232, we "give due weight to inferences drawn from [the]
facts by . . . local law enforcement officers," Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); see also United
States v. Dickey-Bey, 393 F.3d 449, 453 (4th Cir. 2004)
("Under this pragmatic, common sense approach, we defer to
the expertise and experience of law enforcement officers at
the scene").
The total circumstances informing the officers’ decision in
this case about whether contraband or evidence of a crime
would be found in the 407-A Cedar Street residence included,
in addition to Graham’s statement that Moses kept guns and
drugs at the residence, a wealth of background and contextual
information corroborating Graham’s statement. Graham
described a cream-colored duplex on Cedar Street in which
Moses lived and stashed drugs and guns, and Officer Goo-
dykoontz observed Moses, whom he knew from earlier inci-
dents, emerging from unit A — a cream-colored duplex on
Cedar Street. Graham advised the officers that Moses drove
a green Lincoln with temporary tags, and Officer Goo-
dykoontz observed Moses enter a green Lincoln with tempo-
rary tags and drive away. When Moses was arrested, he had
a quantity of illegal drugs on his person. Moreover, after he
10 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
was stopped and was found to have drugs on his person, he
deflected the officers’ attention from unit A, telling the offi-
cers that he had no connection to the unit. Yet Officer Goo-
dykoontz knew that this statement was false as he had
observed Moses exit from unit A. The officers also held sus-
picions relating to Moses’ telephone call to his cousin after
Moses was stopped and the commotion created by his cousin
when spoken to by officers at unit B. Finally, keys taken from
Moses fit the front door of unit A, despite Moses’ protestation
that he had nothing to do with the unit.
From all of this evidence, the officers concluded, in a com-
mon sense approach, that unit A probably contained contra-
band or evidence of a crime. And this is precisely the type of
circumstance in which we defer to the officers’ expertise and
experience. See Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699-700; Dickey-Bey,
393 F.3d at 453. Accordingly, we conclude that when the offi-
cers entered unit 407-A Cedar Street, they had probable cause
to believe that contraband would be found inside.
III
Finding probable cause, however, fulfills only one half of
the Fourth Amendment requirements in the circumstances of
this case. "It is well established that, even when officers have
probable cause to believe that contraband is present in a
home, a warrantless search of the home is unlawful unless
exigent circumstances exist at the time of entry." United
States v. Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395, 399 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589 (1980)). Examples of
exigent circumstances include a "risk of danger to the police
or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling," Minnesota
v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100 (1990) (internal quotation marks
omitted), and situations "where police officers (1) have proba-
ble cause to believe that evidence of illegal activity is present
and (2) reasonably believe that evidence may be destroyed or
removed before they could obtain a warrant," United States v.
Cephas, 254 F.3d 488, 494-95 (4th Cir. 2001). The police are
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 11
not required to "produce concrete proof" that evidence was on
the verge of being destroyed; "rather, the proper inquiry
focuses on what an objective officer could reasonably
believe." United States v. Grissett, 925 F.2d 776, 778 (4th Cir.
1991).
In United States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526 (4th Cir. 1981),
we articulated a nonexhaustive list of factors to consider in
determining whether exigent circumstances are present:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount
of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) the offi-
cers’ reasonable belief that the contraband is about
to be removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of
danger to police guarding the site; (4) information
indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware
that the police are on their trail; and (5) the ready
destructibility of the contraband.
Id. at 528.
In this case, the district court found that exigent circum-
stances existed to justify the warrantless entry into 407-A
North Cedar Street, relying on the following:
The proximity of the traffic stop to the North Cedar
Street residence, Moses’s cellular telephone call to
his cousin in the adjacent apartment, and the
extended commotion caused during the consensual
search of apartment 407-B provided a reasonable
basis for police officers to believe that anyone
remaining in apartment 407-A was aware of the
police action. Further, based on the information
learned through Graham that Moses utilized the
North Cedar Street residence as a stash house for
money, drugs, and guns, it was reasonable for offi-
cers both to fear for their safety and to suspect the
imminent destruction of evidence.
12 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
We review these findings for clear error. See Mowatt, 513
F.3d at 399; Turner, 650 F.2d at 528.
Moses argues that, given the evidence known to the officers
before they created the perimeter in order to apprehend
Moses, no objective officer could reasonably have believed
that exigent circumstances existed. He points particularly to
the fact that police had no evidence from Graham, their own
observations of the Cedar Street location, or any other source
that suggested another person besides Moses lived at the 407-
A North Cedar Street residence or was present there on the
day of the search. In fact, according to the informal intelli-
gence summary maintained by the police, Graham specifically
stated that Moses lived alone. Thus, Moses argues, in effect,
that officers should not be permitted to adjust their beliefs to
accommodate subsequently developed suspicions.
Moses, however, has no legal or logical basis to assert that
officers must be governed by initial information and not be
informed by later developments during the course of their
investigations. Indeed, to deny officers the ability to react to
information as it unfolds would directly contradict the instruc-
tion of Ornelas and Dickey-Bey to give deference to the expe-
rience and expertise of officers in drawing inferences from
facts uncovered during investigations in the field.
It is true that the officers initially had no evidence suggest-
ing that another person was present in 407-A North Cedar
Street. When, however, Moses made a telephone call during
the course of the traffic stop to his cousin at 407-B North
Cedar Street — the residence adjacent to unit 407-A from
which Moses was seen to have emerged — Sergeant Kroh
became concerned that Moses had warned someone back at
Cedar Street about the police so that evidence at 407-A could
be removed or destroyed. Moreover, when the officers reacted
to this suspicion and returned to 407-B North Cedar Street to
interrogate the cousin, her behavior in causing a loud and
unprovoked commotion added to the officers’ suspicions that
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 13
someone else was present inside unit A and that her outburst
was calculated as a warning to that person. See United States
v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507, 531-32 (2d Cir. 1980) (upholding
an exigent-circumstances search of a fourth-floor apartment
where suspects deceived officers into investigating a second-
floor apartment whose occupants created a loud commotion
that officers reasonably believed might have warned persons
on the fourth floor to the police’s presence). The officers also
observed that the windows of unit A were blocked and that a
gold vehicle was parked outside the house, suggesting the
possibility that someone else might be present. Moses’ argu-
ment simply ignores these highly relevant facts.
The district court considered all of these facts and made a
finding that exigent circumstances existed to justify the imme-
diate entry into unit 407-A. We cannot conclude that the dis-
trict court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous in light of
the circumstances.
IV
Finally, Moses contends that the search warrant issued for
1309 South Pearson Street was not supported by probable
cause after evidence obtained during the illegal entry of that
residence is eliminated from the application for the warrant.
The district court found that the officers did not have exigent
circumstances to enter the Pearson Street residence, and the
government has not appealed that decision. Accordingly, evi-
dence obtained during entry of the residence may not be con-
sidered to support the search warrant subsequently obtained,
and we must determine whether, when that evidence is
excluded from the application for the warrant, probable cause
to support the warrant still existed. See United States v. Karo,
468 U.S. 705, 719 (1984) ("[I]f sufficient untainted evidence
was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable
cause, the warrant was nevertheless valid"); United States v.
Gillenwaters, 890 F.2d 679, 681 (4th Cir. 1989) (same).
14 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
In view of our holding that the officers had probable cause
to justify a warrant for 407-A North Cedar Street, it follows
that they also had probable cause to obtain a warrant to search
1309 South Pearson Street, as the evidence in support of prob-
able cause for both locations was substantially the same. The
officers had information that Moses lived and/or sold drugs at
the houses; that Moses drove a green Lincoln with temporary
tags to both locations; that Moses possessed drugs; that Moses
possessed keys that gave him access to both residences, and
they had the evidence discovered from the exigent entry into
407-A North Cedar Street. In addition to that common evi-
dence, the officers also had evidence particular to the Pearson
Street residence, namely a CrimeStoppers tip that someone
was selling drugs at the 1309 South Pearson Street residence,
the officers’ observation of Moses’ green Lincoln at that loca-
tion, and information from an informant (Graham, but his
name was not disclosed in the warrant application) that Moses
sold drugs from a house on Pearson Street. We therefore have
little difficulty in concluding that the evidence remaining in
the application for the warrant to search 1309 South Pearson
Street supported a finding of probable cause. Indeed, at oral
argument, Moses conceded that the second search would
stand or fall with the first.
Moses also attacks the district court’s emphasis with
respect to the Pearson Street evidence that a key in Moses’
possession opened the lock on the door. He contends that the
district court was not entitled to rely on that evidence because
the use of the key was part of the illegal entry into the resi-
dence. As he argues, the use of the key was not "the conclu-
sion of a discre[te] investigative step to determine nothing
more than whether the key operated a particular lock," but
rather "the beginning of [an illegal] search." He argues there-
fore that the information gained from inserting the key into
the lock should also have been stripped from the warrant
application and that without that evidence, probable cause
was lacking.
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 15
While the acts of inserting the key into the lock and enter-
ing the house were part of a continuous activity, the informa-
tion obtained from inserting the key into the lock was
nonetheless discrete from the information obtained from the
illegal entry because the use of the key in the lock need not
have led to entry of the residence at all. The officers could
simply have tried the key and then left to obtain a warrant. If
they improperly entered the residence (which the district court
found they did), anything gleaned from the entry would obvi-
ously have to be excluded from the probable cause analysis
(which it was). But the discrete act of inserting the key into
the lock and discovering whether or not it fit did not offend
the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Salgado, 250
F.3d 438, 456 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Concepcion,
942 F.2d 1170, 1172-73 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Lyons, 898 F.2d 210, 212-13 (1st Cir. 1990); cf. United States
v. $109,179 in U.S. Currency, 228 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.
2000) ("[T]o the extent that [our earlier case] held that the
insertion of the key into the lock was the beginning of a
search, it is inapplicable here since there was no search that
followed" (emphasis omitted)). Thus, regardless of the fact
that use of the key facilitated the warrantless entry, the offi-
cer’s insertion of the key into the lock served the discrete
investigative purpose of confirming that Moses had access to
the South Pearson Street residence.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.
GREGORY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
Because I find that no exigency existed in the moments
prior to the officers warrantless entrance into Apartment 407-
A ("407-A") and that there was not probable cause to search
407-A without the evidence secured during the warrantless
16 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
search, I respectfully dissent as to Part III of the majority
opinion and concur as to the remainder of the opinion.
I.
"[T]he Fourth Amendment favors a warrant based on prob-
able cause, but because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth
Amendment is reasonableness, the warrant requirement is
subject to certain exceptions, as when exigent circumstances
justify the warrantless search of a home . . . ." Mora v. The
City of Gaithersburg, MD, 519 F.3d 216, 222 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Indeed, "[i]t
is well established that, even when officers have probable
cause to believe that contraband is present in a home, a war-
rantless search of the home is unlawful unless exigent circum-
stances exist at the time of entry." United States v. Mowatt,
513 F.3d 395, 399 (4th Cir. 2008). The exigency exception
applies when officers "have probable cause to believe that
evidence of illegal activity is present and [ ] reasonably
believe that evidence may be destroyed or removed before
they could obtain a warrant," United States v. Cephas, 254
F.3d 488, 494-95 (4th Cir. 2001) or when "speed is essential
to prevent escape or harm to police or others." Mora, 519 U.S.
at 226. I first turn to the issue of whether any exigency existed
on the night in question.
In ascertaining whether a "reasonable officer" would have
found that an urgency existed, we focus on the officers’
knowledge in the moments prior to commencing the search.
The majority concedes that the intelligence available to the
officers confirmed that Moses "d[id] not sell [drugs] out of his
house and [that he] lives [in 407-A] by himself." (J.A. 229.)
Despite this lack of actionable intelligence, the majority con-
cludes that the officers reasonably believed that exigent cir-
cumstances precluded them from waiting for a search warrant.
The following four events, all of which occurred on July 17,
2006, the night of Moses’ arrest, convinced the majority that
an exigency that clearly had not existed theretofore, suddenly
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 17
manifested: (1) As police approached Moses’ vehicle, Moses
was on the phone with his next door neighbor and cousin,
Catressa Moore ("Moore"), (2) the "loud and unprovoked
commotion" caused by Moore after multiple officers showed
up at her doorstop asking to search her home, (3) the officers
inability to see inside 407-A because Moses’ blinds were
drawn, and (4) the presence of an unidentified gold vehicle
parked in front of Moses’ apartment building.1
None of these facts, individually or collectively, trans-
formed a controlled situation into one filled with exigency.
With respect to Moses’ phone call, there is nothing peculiar
about making contact with a family member upon being
stopped by the police; in fact, this is a natural reaction to the
jolting experience of being pulled over by multiple officers.
Moses responded truthfully to all of Officer Thomas Kroh’s
questions, providing him with the identity of the person he
was speaking with on the phone, Moore, and giving the offi-
cer Moore’s correct address. Presumably, if Moses had called
his cousin to solicit her aid in destroying contraband located
in his apartment, Moses would have been far less forthcoming
with this information.
The district court and majority also rely on the fact that the
commotion caused by Moore in Apartment 407-B ("407-B")
may have alerted people in 407-A to the police presence. The
majority’s description of Moore’s reaction to the officers as
"loud and unprovoked" paints a distorted picture of what tran-
spired at her apartment. As Moore explained to the officers,
she "hated" Moses, and thus, it is hardly surprising that she
reacted in a volatile manner to the appearance of multiple
1
In addition to the cell phone call and the commotion caused by Moore
cited by the majority, the district court found that the proximity of Moses’
traffic stop to 407-A and the intelligence indicating that Moses used 407-
A as a stash house for drugs and guns, provided support for the officers’
conclusion that an exigent situation had arisen. I will briefly address these
additional reasons below.
18 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
officers at her doorstep demanding consent to search her resi-
dence, ostensibly to confirm the existence of a passageway
between Moore’s and Moses’ apartments. Despite her initial
angst, Moore voluntarily allowed the officers to search her
home, hardly the profile of someone trying to obfuscate the
authorities’ investigation. Considering the officers’ finding
that no passageway existed and Moore’s obvious distaste for
Moses, the idea that Moore created a commotion to alert
another person in 407-A to the presence of the police in order
to help her cousin, lacks credence. Unlike the situation in
United States v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507 (2d Cir. 1980), where
a suspected drug dealer mislead agents’ into believing that
him and his cohorts had come out of a second floor apartment
when in fact the relevant apartment was located on the fourth
floor, Moore did not deceive the officers. In addition, in
Vasquez, during the ensuing melee in the second floor apart-
ment, the officers realized that they had been bamboozled
after the landlord informed them that the culprits’ actually
came out of an apartment on the fourth floor. Here, the offi-
cers did not have information from a reliable source (or any
source for that matter) that a third party existed in 407-A.
The majority also relies on the fact that the officers could
not see inside Moses’ apartment. Once again, there is nothing
illegal or even unusual about a person "shut[ting] up" the win-
dows of his home to protect his privacy. The billions of dol-
lars in annual sales generated by the blinds industry provides
sound evidence that Moses is not alone in his desire to protect
his home from the prying eyes of the public. Furthermore,
Officer Goodykoontz ("Goodykoontz") had other information
to rely on to dispel his hunch that another party was in 407-
A. For example, despite standing in front of 407-A’s door,
Goodykoontz heard no sounds from inside the apartment.
Critically, the moments during which Goodykoontz stood at
407-A’s door listening for sounds overlapped with the time
when Moore was allegedly creating a commotion next door.
Thus, if a cohort of Moses was in 407-A, Moore’s outburst
should have tipped off the occupant to the police presence and
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 19
triggered the destruction of the contraband, a task that surely
would have generated noise.
Finally, Goodykoontz stated during his cross-examination
that "the gold car parked in front [of Moses’ apartment]" (J.A.
73) was the reason for his suspicion that another person
remained in Moses’ apartment. Yet, this excuse seems to be
exactly that: an excuse. It is incredulous that the officers did
not run the gold car’s license plates to identify its owner or
in the alternative, at least query Moses and his cousin about
who owned the gold car. Furthermore, the gold car was sta-
tioned in the parking lot of an apartment complex with a mul-
titude of residents, not parked in front of a single family
home’s private driveway. Consequently, the location of the
car in front of Moses’ apartment does not lead to the inevita-
ble (or even likely) conclusion that the owner of the gold car
had any relationship with Moses. Indeed, Goodykoontz him-
self conceded that point when he admitted that "there was no
evidence to show that somebody was actually in the apart-
ment [after Moses and his girlfriend left] . . . ." (J.A. 78.)
Since the district court relied on our decision in United
States v. Turner, 650 F.2d 526 (4th Cir. 2001), a comparison
of the facts in both cases is worthwhile. In Turner, an infor-
mant told the police he personally observed one of the defen-
dants, Gregory Turner ("Turner") selling drugs from his
apartment; that Turner possessed a certain amount of cocaine
on the night in question (the informant had purchased cocaine
from the defendant that very night); that Turner would be
leaving the apartment with the cocaine and transferring it to
another location; and most importantly, he confirmed that
Turner had an accomplice with him in the apartment.
After receiving this information, the police began to pre-
pare a search warrant affidavit. Prior to the approval of the
search warrant, Turner left the apartment and the police
arrested him 300 to 400 feet from his apartment. While no
cocaine was found on Turner, he informed the officers that his
20 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
accomplice remained in the apartment. At that stage, one of
the police officers on the scene spoke with a state prosecutor
who directed the officer to enter Turner’s apartment immedi-
ately to arrest Turner’s accomplice and prevent the possible
destruction of the cocaine. The officer used Turner’s keys to
enter the apartment without a warrant. Because the officers
reasonably believed that Turner’s accomplice could have been
aware of his arrest (due to the proximity of the arrest to the
apartment) and possibly destroy the drugs prior to the delivery
of the search warrant, we held that the exigent circumstances
exception justified the officers’ warrantless search.
As with all cases involving exigent circumstances, "the
emergency circumstances will vary from case to case and the
inherent necessities of the situation at the time must be scruti-
nized." Turner, 650 F.2d at 528 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Moses’ situation can be easily distinguished
from the situation in Turner on several counts including: (1)
in the moments prior to the officers’ warrantless entry into
Moses’ apartment, there was no reliable information that any-
one remained in 407-A; (2) an occupant in 407-A could not
have seen Moses’ arrest; (3) no real-time eyewitness testi-
mony existed to confirm that drugs existed in 407-A that
night; and (4) Goodykoontz knocked on the door to 407-A
while the other officers went to 407-B, and nobody answered;
in addition, Goodykoontz failed to hear any audible sounds
emanating from 407-A.
It is also noteworthy that after confirming that there was no
access between 407-A and 407-B, the officers spent an inde-
terminate amount of time discussing their next move. During
this time span, Goodykoontz asked Moses for consent to
search 407-A, which he denied. According to Goodykoontz,
at that point, he "took [Moses’] keys to ensure that he had
some right to [407-A]." (J.A. 83) (emphasis added). After
determining that Moses’ key fit the keyhole, thus confirming
that Moses did have a right to 407-A, Goodykoontz and Kroh
nevertheless proceeded into 407-A to conduct a warrantless
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 21
"protective search" for the reasons stated above, though I find
all of those reasons to be perplexing and wholly unconvinc-
ing. In addition, while Moses did have a violent criminal his-
tory, and Carl Kotay Graham ("Graham"), the head of Moses’
gang, told the police that Moses stashed guns in his home,
Moses was secured in the back seat of a police car and posed
no threat to any of the officers. If officers can simply enter a
person’s domicile on the basis that the suspect has a violent
criminal history, Fourth Amendment protections will no lon-
ger exist for the millions of American citizens who have a
violent felony on their record.
Overall, we have held that five factors are relevant in deter-
mining whether exigent circumstances exist:
(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount
of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) the offi-
cers’ reasonable belief that the contraband is about
to be removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of
danger to police guarding the site; (4) information
indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware
that police are on their trail; and (5) the ready
destructibility of the contraband.
Turner, 650 U.S. at 528 (citation omitted). Based on the facts
above, no urgency exited in 407-A on July 17, 2006. Indeed,
the officers admittedly had no evidence that anyone remained
in 407-A after Moses and his girlfriend departed.2
Second, while a reasonable officer could believe that con-
traband was present inside 407-A, for the reasons stated
above, no reasonable officer could fathom that there was
someone in 407-A destroying the contraband. Third, as to the
2
While the record confirms that Goodykoontz’s surveillance of the
Cedar Street Residence began at 2:45 p.m., and the warrant for 407-A
issued at 5:40 p.m., there is no indication as to when Goodykoontz applied
for the warrant.
22 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
possibility of danger to police guarding the site, contrary to
the district court’s finding, the fact that the officers spent time
prior to the arrest and after the search of 407-B without call-
ing for any back-up indicates that they did not feel any signif-
icant danger. In addition, there were multiple police officers
standing outside 407-A to secure the immediate area around
the apartment. Goodykoontz himself clearly felt comfortable
approaching 407-A on his own while the other officers went
to 407-B, further demonstrating that the officers themselves,
like any reasonable officer under those circumstances, did not
fear for their safety. Fourth, given the opportunity to destroy
contraband, it is reasonable to conclude that most parties
would do so upon learning of a police presence; however, in
this case, there is no evidence that any person with such an
opportunity actually existed. Finally, while the drugs could
have been destroyed without much effort, the destruction of
the firearms would have been virtually impossible.
Ultimately, the facts relied upon by the district court and
the majority relate, ostensibly, to the distinct possibility that
a previously unidentified person remained in 407-A after
Moses and his girlfriend left his apartment on July 17, 2006,
thus justifying the officers’ warrantless entry. Looking at the
facts known to the officers, both individually and cumula-
tively, I am left with a "definite and firm conviction" that the
district court clearly erred in finding that reasonable officers
could conclude that such a possibility existed. Turner, 650
F.2d at 528 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
II.
Having found that exigent circumstances did not exist, I
briefly turn to the issue of whether there would still be proba-
ble cause to search 407-A if the information gained from the
warrantless search was struck from the search warrant affida-
vit. After excising the information gained from the protective
search of 407-A, the following information remains in the
affidavit: "intelligence" conveyed by a second officer to Goo-
UNITED STATES v. MOSES 23
dykoontz indicating that Moses used 407-A to store a "distri-
butable amount of illegal narcotics and firearms"; a search of
Moses after his arrest resulted in the discovery of four grams
of marijuana in Moses’ pant pocket; Moses possessed the key
for 407-A, although he denied any connection with 407-A;
Moses’ criminal history, which included drug possession and
concealed weapon charges; and Goodykoontz’s extensive
investigative experience in the narcotics trade.
Probable cause does not mandate "absolute certainty,"
United States v. Gary, 528 F.3d. 324, 327 (4th Cir. 2008), and
exists if "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place." Id. (quoting Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). As to the intelligence,
the affidavit does not contain any information as to the source
of the intelligence, and as a result, the magistrate could not
evaluate the reliability of the information.3 This is critical to
the probable cause determination because the most important
background information on Moses came from this intelli-
gence.
Second, the four grams of marijuana found on Moses is not
a distributable amount, rather it is only sufficient for personal
use. As such, without further information, this is not enough
to suspect that Moses possessed a large quantity of narcotics
in 407-A. With respect to Moses’ criminal history, the search
warrant only provided the magistrate with information that
Moses had been charged with several prior counts of drug
possession and three concealed weapon charges, including
possession of a firearm by a felon. While the affidavit makes
it clear that Moses was a felon, the affidavit does not indicate
on what charges Moses was convicted. Consequently, the
3
The record indicates that the intelligence came from Graham during an
oral interview with an officer from the Greensboro Police Department.
The search warrant stated that Goodykoontz "received information from
Officer S. Richardson. . . ." that Moses was "dealing illegal narcotics and
possessing firearms." (J.A. 235.)
24 UNITED STATES v. MOSES
magistrate would have had to assume that the charges against
Moses resulted in guilty pleas or convictions in order to find
such evidence persuasive. Thus, we are left with the fact that
Moses failed to confirm his association with 407-A. While
this factor is certainly relevant, it is not enough to establish a
"fair probability" that Moses’ residence contained contraband.
Consequently, I would hold that without the evidence gar-
nered during the protective search of 407-A, the officers did
not have probable cause to enter Moses’ apartment.
Since I would reverse the district court’s denial of Moses’
motion to suppress with respect to the warrantless search of
407-A, I respectfully dissent from Part III of the majority
opinion, although I join my colleagues in the remainder of
their opinion.