An anonymous child abuse complaint was made to the Kings County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a volunteer group of licensed peace officers, identifying that three children between ages 8 and 12 were being abused at 1107 Carroll Street, Brooklyn, the headquarters of a cult. The three houses were owned by the "Provisional Party of Communists." Although the movement had no history of violence, the FBI had raided these houses in 1984 after a defector told the FBI about a weapons cache. Nothing was found in that raid.

Sgt. Robert Casazza responded to the call. He explained to the woman who opened the door that "it would be in her best interest to allow us to walk in and check the children." As he spoke, Sgt. Casazza stuck his foot in the door. The woman told the officer there were no children there and it would be in his own best interest to remove his foot. At this point, heavily armed Emergency Service Unit officers entered the building. The officers searched the house and found 30 adults but no children. They did find a false back in a closet. They ripped this out to discover a secret compartment filled with weapons.

The officers extended their search to the neighboring buildings, where they found the three children. Although none of the children were bruised and medical examiners could find no evidence of abuse, one child told police "It's okay that my mommy beats me. I deserve it."

Among the items seized by the police were a submachine gun in a viola case, 16 handguns, 26 rifles, five shotguns, two Thompson submachine guns, an air gun, 13 knives, three blackjacks, eight pairs of handcuffs, five pounds of explosive powder and two organizational charts listing a "Presidium of Politburo" and "Committee of Responsibility."

Three individuals are charged with felony weapons possession and two individuals were issued summonses for trying to sneak past police back into the building after it was evacuated. The children's mother was charged with endangering the welfare of a child and second degree assault.

Should the evidence seized be suppressed?

See Illinois v. Gates, 85 Ill.2d 376 (1983); Muscatell v. Cline, 196 W.Va 588 (1996); State v. LC Davis, 35 Wash.App 724 (1983).

Submitted by Bill Estes

Emory University School of Law

Answer
(1) The tip from the informant may have been sufficient for the police to have probable cause to search the complex for the children.  However, the police failed to obtain a search warrant for the children.  Had they done so, the evidence would be admissible under the plain view doctrine.  The evidence should probably be suppressed as it does not meet the requirements of an exemption and was seized in contravention to the 4th amendment's warrant requirement.

(2) The government may attempt to make the search an exception to the 4th amendment's warrant based upon probable cause requirement by claiming that an exigent circumstance exists.  However, one of the traditional circumstances (1) destruction of evidence (2) preventing harm to persons aka. danger to life and (3) hot pursuit of a felony suspect do not seem readily apparent in this case.