AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case revolves around the Defendant's appeal against the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The police had a felony arrest warrant for the Defendant and entered his girlfriend's house to arrest him. The Defendant was seen inside the residence through an open door.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the police's authority to enter a dwelling with an arrest warrant should only apply to the Defendant's own home and not to a third party's home.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the police had the authority to enter the girlfriend's house to arrest the Defendant based on the existing felony arrest warrant.

Legal Issues

• Whether the police had the authority to enter a third party's home to arrest the Defendant with a felony arrest warrant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Linda M. Vanzi, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found the Defendant's arguments against the police's authority to enter his girlfriend's house to arrest him unpersuasive. It relied on the precedent set by State v. Krout, which holds that an arrest warrant supported by probable cause justifies police entry into a dwelling where the defendant resides if there is reason to believe the defendant is within. The Court noted that the Defendant's distinction between his home and a third party's home was not supported by persuasive authority and did not provide any alternative legal basis to challenge the police's actions.