United States v. Wicks

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993 · Evidence

995 F.2d 964 (10th Cir. 1993)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceexigent circumstanceswarrantless arrestmotel room as dwellingprobable causeparticularitysearch warrantdrug trafficking

Facts

DEA agents investigated Wicks after arrestee Darryl Skaggs identified him as a methamphetamine supplier who traveled between California and Oklahoma, used adjoining motel rooms at the Drover's Inn for drug business, and had carried a firearm on at least one occasion. Monitored calls between Skaggs and Wicks corroborated drug dealing and showed Wicks was becoming suspicious and anxious about meeting at another motel, while agents believed he was near the end of his usual travel cycle and might soon leave. Agents entered Wicks' motel room without a warrant, arrested him, saw white powder in plain view, then obtained a search warrant and seized drugs, firearms, locked briefcases, and papers containing methamphetamine and crack cocaine recipes and precursor chemical lists. At sentencing, the government relied on Wicks' 1963 California guilty pleas to three first-degree robberies as ACCA predicates.

Issue

Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest of Wicks in his motel room; whether the post-arrest search warrant was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular, including as to the briefcases; whether the recipe papers were inadmissible hearsay; and whether Wicks could defeat ACCA enhancement by pointing to an incomplete 1963 plea transcript that did not affirmatively show Boykin-style waivers.

Rule

Police may enter a dwelling, including a motel room, to make a warrantless arrest when probable cause exists and exigent circumstances make immediate action reasonable, including a reasonable fear that evidence will be destroyed, the suspect will flee, or officers or the public will face danger. A search warrant satisfies the Fourth Amendment when, under a common-sense probable cause standard, it gives the magistrate a substantial basis to conclude evidence of wrongdoing will be found and describes the things to be seized as specifically as the circumstances and nature of the investigation permit. Writings are not hearsay when admitted not for the truth of their contents but to permit an inference connecting the defendant to criminal activity. In ACCA proceedings, once the government proves the fact of a prior guilty-plea conviction, the defendant bears the entire burden of proving its constitutional invalidity, and no presumption of invalidity arises from an incomplete or silent pre-Boykin record.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Drug agents in Tulsa have probable cause to arrest Nolan Price for running a fentanyl distribution ring out of his motel room. A cooperating courier has just warned agents that Price became suspicious after a failed meetup, usually leaves town the same night after collecting money, and has carried a pistol during past deals; agents see his packed SUV outside the room near checkout time.

May the agents enter the motel room without first obtaining an arrest warrant?

Explanation. A motel room is treated like a dwelling, so probable cause alone is not enough. But officers may make a warrantless entry to arrest when exigent circumstances make immediate action reasonable, including reasonable fear of flight, destruction or removal of evidence, or danger to officers or the public. Here, the suspect's suspicion, routine departure pattern, imminent departure, and history of carrying a gun are specific indications supporting exigency.