Exigent Circumstances, generally
Category > Exigent Circumstances, generally
The “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement does not apply absent an exigent circumstance.Defendant was suicidal when the officers arrived at his house, but he subsequently came outside and was restrained. There was no exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry of the home at this time, but the entry was later found to be proper under the “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement. Contrary to the earlier holding in People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464, the community caretaking exception cannot be applied absent an exigent circumstance. The firearm related convictions were reversed and the suppression motion was granted. id: 26352
Police could properly seize a package that smelled like marijuana but could not search the package without a warrant.Defendant sent a package that smelled like marijuana and Fed Ex employees notified police. The subsequent warrantless search of the package violated the Fourth Amendment. While a container’s mobility may constitute an exigent circumstance sufficient to justify a warrant less seizure, it cannot alone justify a search once the package is seized. The officers should have obtained a warrant to search the package. The prosecution on appeal also argued the search was justified by plain smell, similar to the plain view doctrine, but that issue was forfeited by the DA’s failure to raise it during the suppression hearing.id: 23228
Supreme Court sets standard for exigent circumstances.In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice White, the Supreme Court stated that a warrantless intrusion may be justified by hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or imminent destruction of evidence, or the need to prevent a suspect's escape or risk or danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling. Applying that standard, the Minnesota Supreme Court found no exigent circumstances here. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that it was not inclined to disagree with this fact-specific application of the proper legal standard. The court noted that three or four Minneapolis police squads had surrounded the house and it was evident the suspect was going nowhere. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Blackmun dissented.id: 11119
Officers entry and search of residence was justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement following reports of a distressed woman inside.Officers were told by a radio dispatch operator that there was a report of a woman screaming. Officers arrived at the location and heard arguing. Their entry into the house, following a delay before an occupant answered the door, was justified by the “emergency aid exception” to the search warrant requirement. The search was reasonable even though the police responded to the wrong house as the arguing they heard came from the house across the street from the address provided by the dispatch operator.id: 25232
Good-faith exception applied to warrantless blood draw of a DUI suspect that occurred before McNeely opinion. Defendant argued the warrantless nonconsensual blood draw taken after his drunk driving arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights. While such searches had been approved for years in order to prevent dissipation of alcohol levels in the bloodstream, the practice was repudiated in McNeely v. Missouri (2013) 133 S. Ct. 1552, which requires a case-by-case analysis to determine whether an exigent circumstance existed that would justify a warrantless search. However, the search took place before McNeely and the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. Moreover, the police did not use excessive force in drawing the blood where the defendant was kicking and the officer didn’t strike or abuse him. id: 23849
Protective sweeps are not limited to lawful arrests and can apply to a defendant who is detained outside of his house.Where a person is detained outside or near his residence, the police may conduct a “protective sweep” inside the residence when there is reasonable suspicion that a person therein poses a danger to officer safety.id: 23058
The warrantless entry by the second wave responders following a valid protective sweep was proper where the police presence was uninterrupted and the recovery of a shell casing not found in plain view was justified under the inevitable discovery doctrine.The trial court erred by suppressing forensic evidence seized from his home pursuant to a warrantless search conducted after he was arrested and the victim was declared dead. The first wave of responders entered the house lawfully in light of the exigent circumstances, and made certain plain view observations. The entry by the second wave responders was proper where there was an uninterrupted police presence in the house and a close-in-time successive search of areas already validly searched in order to begin processing evidence observed in plain view. Moreover, the evidence discovered that was not in plain view - a shell casing and a depression under it would inevitably have been discovered by the coroner.id: 22658
Warrantless entry into the locked upstairs bedroom was justified by the emergency aid exception where police had an objectively reasonable basis to conclude the shooting victim was inside the locked room.The emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement justified a warrantless entry by police into a residence to search for additional victims of a recent shooting. The police did not err by entering a locked upstairs bedroom where marijuana and firearms were found in plain view. Police did not need ironclad proof of a likely serious injury to invoke the emergency aid exception to enter the bedroom, but rather an objectively reasonable basis for believing medical assistance was necessary or persons were in danger. id: 22075
Exigent circumstances permitted the warrantless entry of a residence to aid a dog the police reasonably believed was being abused. Where an officer reasonably believed an animal on the property was in immediate need of aid due to injury or mistreatment, the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment may be invoked to permit a warrantless entry to help the animal. Here, the evidence supported the exigent circumstances finding where a witness reported to police that defendant was abusing and possibly torturing a dog who had been howling for about 15 minutes.id: 21602
Supreme Court says officers may keep defendant from entering home while they seek warrant.Police officers accompanied defendant's wife to the trailer where she lived with defendant, so they could "keep the peace" while she removed her belongings. When the wife emerged after collecting her possessions, she told the officers her husband had "dope" in there and she had seen him slide it underneath the couch. An officer knocked on the trailer door, told defendant what his wife had said, and asked permission to search, which was denied. While other officers left to get a search warrant, the officer told defendant (who by this time was out on the porch) that he could not re-enter the trailer unless a police officer accompanied him. He did so two or three times and each time an officer stood just inside the door to observe what he did. Two hours later the warrant was obtained, and a small amount of marijuana was found under the sofa. In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court held that "exigent circumstances" made it reasonable to prevent the defendant from re-entering the trailer unless accompanied by an officer. The police had good reason to fear that unless restrained, defendant would destroy the drugs before they could return with a warrant. Justice Souter concurred specially, and Justice Steven dissented, arguing that a higher value should have been placed on the sanctity of the home than on the prosecution of this "petty offense."id: 15134
Entry into the backyard in order to knock on the rear door did not invalidate the subsequent oral and written consents to search the house in light of the exigent circumstances.Defendant argued that when the detective walked into the backyard and knocked on the back door, the Fourth Amendment violation invalidated the subsequently obtained written and oral consents. However, the case involved exigent circumstances including the need to apprehend an absconding parolee who was considered armed and hiding in a residential neighborhood. This exigency strongly outweighed the marginal relevant impact of the trespass into defendant's backyard.id: 16927
Battered victim/wife standing out on the porch properly gave consent to enter the premises to arrest defendant.Officers were investigating a domestic dispute and found the wife outside of the house crying uncontrollably. She stated that defendant (her husband) had hit her several times. Officers entered the home without a warrant and with only the wife's consent. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence derived form the detention, arrest and search. However, the entry was justified both by exigent circumstances and consent. The risk of imminent violence resulting in further physical harm to the victim was an exigent circumstance requiring immediate action. Moreover, the victim had the authority to consent to police entry into the premises to arrest defendant and his authority was not vitiated nor the victim's joint occupant status negated by defendant's refusal to give consent.id: 11117
Only reasonable suspicion is necessary for protective sweep of premises.In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice White, the Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an arrest in a home when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. The protective sweep is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented, arguing that such protective sweeps ought to be permitted only when the officers have probable cause to believe that their personal safety is threatened by a hidden confederate.id: 11118
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850