## Facts

- Maine drug agents conducted a 1997 cocaine investigation using controlled buys involving a confidential informant and Wendy Spinney, who identified her supplier as “Junior” in Waldoboro, Maine.
- Agents surveilled Spinney traveling to a trailer where Ralph Winchenbach, Jr. lived; Spinney allegedly obtained cocaine there on multiple occasions.
- After a September 3, 1997 controlled buy, Spinney and a companion were arrested with cocaine; agents obtained a search warrant for Winchenbach’s trailer but did not obtain an arrest warrant for him.
- Officers entered the trailer under the search warrant, arrested Winchenbach inside, and searched him incident to arrest, seizing incriminating evidence.
- At trial, Winchenbach presented an alibi and called Robbie Flint, who denied that Winchenbach was involved with drugs and denied telling an agent that “jars of cocaine” were buried outside the trailer.
- In rebuttal, the government called the agent to testify that Flint had made that statement; the court instructed the jury the testimony was admitted only to assess Flint’s credibility, not for its truth.
- Winchenbach was convicted of cocaine distribution and sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment; the district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his person.

## Issues

1. Whether officers executing a valid search warrant may arrest an occupant inside the residence without a separate arrest warrant when they have probable cause to arrest.
2. Whether the government may introduce extrinsic rebuttal testimony to impeach a defense witness with a prior inconsistent statement under Fed. R. Evid. 613(b), or whether such evidence is barred by Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the in-home arrest was constitutional because officers entered lawfully under a search warrant and had probable cause to arrest; no separate arrest warrant was required.
- The court held the rebuttal agent testimony was properly admitted as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 613(b) and was not barred by Rule 608(b).
- The limiting instruction restricting the rebuttal testimony to impeachment purposes supported the conclusion that there was no reversible prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment does not require an arrest warrant for an in-home arrest when officers are already lawfully inside under a valid search warrant and have probable cause to arrest the occupant.
- The primary Fourth Amendment concern in the home-arrest context is unlawful entry; a search warrant supplies judicial authorization to enter the premises.
- Extrinsic evidence offered to prove a witness’s prior inconsistent statement for impeachment is admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 613(b) when the witness is confronted with the statement and denies it.
- Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) does not bar extrinsic evidence that is admitted to show a prior inconsistent statement rather than to prove character for untruthfulness.
- A limiting instruction may confine impeachment evidence to credibility and reduce the risk of unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of suppression and affirmed the conviction, ruling that lawful entry under a search warrant combined with probable cause permitted an in-home arrest without an arrest warrant, and that extrinsic rebuttal testimony impeaching an alibi witness with a prior inconsistent statement was admissible under Rule 613(b) with a proper limiting instruction.


United States v. Winchenbach, 197 F.3d 548 (1st Cir. 1999)