discussed Cited "see" United States v. Miles See United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59, 62 (5th Cir.) (“A valid arrest warrant carries with it the implicit but limited authority to enter the residence of the person named in the warrant in order to execute the warrant, where there is ‘reason to believe’ that the suspect is within”), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1109 , 117 S.Ct. 2491 , 138 L.Ed.2d 998 (1997); United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212, 216 (8th Cir.1996) (“officers executing an arrest warrant must have a ‘reasonable belief that the suspect resides at the place to be entered ... and [have] reason to believe that the suspect is…

examined Cited "see" Valdez v. McPheters (4×) See United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59, 62 (5th Cir.) ("A valid arrest warrant carries with it the implicit but limited authority to enter the residence of the person named in the warrant in order to execute the warrant, where there is 'reason to believe' that the suspect is within"), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1109 , 117 S.Ct. 2491 , 138 L.Ed.2d 998 (1997); United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212, 216 (8th Cir.1996) ("officers executing an arrest warrant must have a 'reasonable belief that the suspect resides at the place to be entered ... and [have] reason to believe that the suspect is present' at…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Green v. State Id. at 1535; see also United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59, 62 (5th Cir.1997) (adhering to reasonable belief test articulated in Woods when deciding whether entry into residence to execute arrest warrant violates Fourth Amendment), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1109 , 117 S.Ct. 2491 , 138 L.Ed.2d 998 (1997); Morgan, 963 S.W.2d at 204 (citing Magluta in holding that police were authorized to enter hotel room to execute felony arrest warrant); Smith, 960 F.Supp. at 988 (adopting Magluta reasonable belief standard).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jones (2×) See, e.g., United States v. Route, 104 F.3d 59, 62 (5th Cir.), cert. den. 521 U.S. 1109 , 117 S.Ct. 2491 , 138 L.Ed.2d 998 (1997) (canvassing federal circuit decisions). [3] They have so held for essentially the same reasons that the court in Jordan held, and later reaffirmed in Davis, that a search warrant is not necessary— i.e., that a valid arrest warrant provides judicial protection against indiscriminate and unjustified police conduct and carries with it implicit but limited authority to at least enter a person's home where there is "reason to believe" that the suspect is within.