|
In 2012, Lowell, Mass., police began an investigation into the stabbing of a man who was selling illegal drugs. The victim could not identify the assailant, but a woman who claimed she regularly purchased heroin from the victim told police that she and Erich Sorenson had schemed to rob the victim and that Sorenson had stabbed the man in the course of the robbery. Although the woman’s accusation and testimony implicating Sorenson were riddled with inconsistencies, the police decided to go to Sorenson’s residence and arrest him without a warrant. Sorenson lived on the top floor of a three-story apartment building with numerous units on each floor. One officer entered the building, went up to the top floor, made his way to the back, and knocked on the door of Sorenson’s apartment. Sorenson’s wife answered, and the officer asked if Sorenson was home. When Sorenson came to the door, the officer asked him to step out into the hallway. As he stepped into the hallway, Sorenson was immediately arrested adjacent to the apartment. In the course of the arrest, Sorenson made a statement claiming to be elsewhere at the time of the stabbing, but the officer noticed a cut on his hand, which he suspected of being connected to the stabbing.
In the lower courts, Sorenson argued that the circumstantial evidence of the statement and the cut on his hand should be suppressed because his warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Although the victim initially thought a photo of Sorenson resembled the assailant, the victim later said “It’s not him” upon taking a second look. To convict Sorenson, the government relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence observed by police when arresting Sorensen—evidence which should have been suppressed had the court agreed that the area outside Sorensen’s apartment is protected curtilage, rendering a warrantless arrest in the curtilage of a home unconstitutional. However, the lower courts rejected Sorenson’s arguments, reasoning that because the arrest occurred in a multi-unit apartment building there was no curtilage subject to Fourth Amendment protection. In its amicus brief supporting Sorenson’s petition before the Supreme Court, The Rutherford Institute argued that a person’s dwelling should receive all the protections conferred by the Fourth Amendment whether it be an apartment or a house.
The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Erich Sorenson v. Massachusetts is available at www.rutherford.org. Affiliate attorneys David J. Feder, Nathaniel P. Garrett, and Jeremy R. Kauffman of Jones Day in California assisted in advancing the arguments in the Sorenson brief.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
Source: https://bit.ly/3v9zRCX
|
