State v. Roberts , 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1258 ( 1981 )

BEVILACQUA, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I disagree with the majority’s result that the case should be remanded for the purpose of having the trial justice make specific findings concerning the presence of exigent circumstances that would have validated the warrantless entry into the dwelling.

The trial court held a hearing on defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence that resulted from the warrantless entry. All the evidence surrounding the activities of all parties on the evening in question was fully developed at that hearing. The record clearly indicates this, therefore rendering it unnecessary for this court to require further factfinding in order to make a determination regarding the presence of exigent circumstances. Furthermore, such a hearing would not disclose any new evidence that would support a finding of exigent circumstances.

Notwithstanding the recent decision of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 629 (1980), the law was well settled that warrantless arrests, entries, or searches were not generally approved or looked upon with favor. See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96, 85 S.Ct. 223, 228, 13 L.Ed.2d 142, 147 (1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 615, 81 S.Ct. 776, 779, 5 L.Ed.2d 828, 832 (1961). Thus, the issue before the trial justice at the hearing on the defendants’ motion to suppress was whether the police had sufficient reason to enter the dwelling without a warrant. See Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14-15, 68 S.Ct. 367, 369, 92 L.Ed. 436, 440-41 (1948). The results of that hearing indicated that all the evidence was presented and that the state offered no evidence to justify police entry into the Sullivan residence. An evidentiary hearing would be necessary if there had been a failure to provide the state an opportunity to present the circumstances involving the warrantless entry, or if the record was devoid of sufficient facts to enable this court to make a meaningful review, but such is not the case here. Simply stated, the facts justifying a warrantless entry into the dwelling were not evident from the record because they did not exist.