Exigency Flashcards
Drunk driver crashes vehicle, walks home. Officers run registration and find address, which is close by, and told by witnesses that male was drunk. Can you then enter the residence to arrest?
The crime of driving under the influence is a minor criminal offense and does not justify the warrantless entry of a residence to arrest and preserve evidence of blood-alcohol level. Application of the exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor criminal offense, such as the kind of issue in this case, has been committed.
Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984)
Police responded to a disturbance and found the defendant had done considerable damage
to his vehicle and outside property. They noticed blood drops on the vehicle and clothes in it. They observed him inside his residence in a rage throwing items. He had a cut on his hand. They officers were concerned for his safety and the safety of other possible victims inside The defendant refused to let him in and demanded the officers get a search warrant. They entered anyway. The defendant pointed a long gun at one of the officers. The officer withdrew the defendant was later charged with assault with a deadly weapon. We’re the officers in the wrong?
Held: The officers do not need ironclad proof of “a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the emergency aid exception and make a warrantless entry into the house. It was reasonable to believe the defendant hurt himself and needed treatment and his rage made him unable to provide it, or that someone else may be hurt, or about to be hurt.
(2012)-Police went to the Huff’s house to talk to Vincent Huff, a juvenile student who was rumored to have
written a letter threatening to “shoot up” the school. He had been absent for two days and is frequently bullied. His classmates believed that he was capable of carrying out the threat. The police knocked on the door, but got no response. They called the house, and still no response. They called Mrs. Huff’s cell phone. She answered and said she was in the house. She told the police that Vincent was with her.
Mrs. Huff hung up on the officer while he was talking to her. A few minutes later The mother and son came out. The police asked to come inside to talk. Mrs. Huff refused. In the officer’s opinion, this refusal was very unusual. The officer asked Mrs: Huff if there were guns in the house. She responded by turning around and running into the house. The officers, fearing for their safety, chased her into the house. The officers remained in the house even after Mr. Huff came out of another room and challenged their authority to be in his house. They questioned Vincent and after approx. 10 minutes determined that the rumors were false and they left. The Huffs sued the police for violating their 4th Amendment rights by entering their home without a warrant.
Were the officers in the wrong?
No they weren’t
10th Circuit
US v Mongold
Officers entered a home after the door was opened in response to a knock. The officers smelled marijuana. They forced their way in to prevent the destruction of evidence.
The court found the entry was unlawful. Before an officer can, without warrant, enter a home to prevent the destruction of evidence the following criteria must be met:
a. The entry must be based on probable cause.
b. There must be a “serious crime”.
c. The destruction of evidence is likely.
The court determined that lacking probable cause of distribution or trafficking of marijuana, the odor only indicates simple possession, which in Oklahoma where the case originated is a misdemeanor offense. Therefore, the “serious crime” requirement was not met.
On the basis of information that respondent Santana had in her possession marked money used to make a heroin “buy” arranged by an undercover agent, police officers went to Santana’s house where she was standing in the doorway holding a paper bag, but as the officers approached she retreated into the vestibule of her house where they caught her. When she tried to escape, envelopes containing what was later determined to be heroin fell to the floor from the paper bag, and she was found to have been carrying some of the marked money on her person. Respondent Alejandro, who had been sitting on the front steps, was caught when he tried to make off with the dropped envelopes of heroin. After their indictment for possessing heroin with intent to distribute, respondents moved to suppress the heroin and marked money.
The District Court granted the motion on the ground that although the officers had probable cause to make the arrests, Santana’s retreat into the vestibule did not justify a warrantless entry into the house on the ground of “hot pursuit.” The Court of Appeals affirmed.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
USSC:
- Santana, while standing in the doorway of her house, was in a “public place” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, since she was not in an area where she had any expectation of privacy and was not merely visible to the public but was exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house.
Thus, when the police, who concededly had probable cause to do so, sought to arrest her, they merely intended to make a warrantless arrest in a public place upon probable cause and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411. P. 42 - By retreating into a private place, Santana could not defeat an otherwise proper arrest that had been set in motion in a public place.
Since there was a need to act quickly to prevent destruction of evidence, there was a true “hot pursuit, “which need not be an extended hue and cry “in and about
[the) public streets,” and thus a warrantless entry to make the arrest was [427 U.S. 38, 391 justified, Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, as was the search incident to that arrest. Pp. 42-43.
The police were informed that an armed robbery had occurred and that the suspect, respondent, had thereafter entered a certain house Minutes later, they arrived there and were told by respondent’s wife that she had no objection to their searching the house. Certain officers arrested respondent in an upstairs bedroom when it became clear he was the only man in the house. Others simultaneously searched the first floor and cellar. One found weapons in a flush tank; another, looking “for a man or the money,” found in a washing machine clothing of the type the suspect was said to have worn. Ammunition was also found. These items were admitted into evidence without objection at respondent’s trial, which resulted in his conviction. After unsuccessful state court proceedings, respondent sought and was denied habeas corpus relief in the District Court. The Court of Appeals found the search lawful, but reversed on the ground that the clothing seized during the search was immune from seizure, being of “evidential value only.
Held:
- “The exigencies of the situation,” in which the officers were in pursuit of a suspected armed felon in the house which he had entered only minutes before they arrived permitted their warrantless entry and search. McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 335 U. S. 456. Pp. 387 U. S. 298-300.
- The distinction prohibiting seizure of items of only evidential value and allowing seizure of instrumentalities, fruits, or contraband is no longer accepted as being required by the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 387 U. S. 300-310.
(a) There is no rational distinction between a search for “mere evidence” and one for an “instrumentality” in terms of the privacy which is safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment; nor does the language of the Amendment itself make such a distinction. Pp. 387 U. S. 301-302
(b) The clothing items involved here are not “testimonial” or “communicative,” and their introduction did not compel respondent to become a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757. Pp. 387 U. S. 302-303.
What are the emergency conditions that the Supreme Court has found to support exigency? There are three
The need to pursue a fleeing suspect
The need to protect individuals who are threatened with imminent harm,
And the need to prevent the eminent destruction of evidence (serious offense such as distribution)
United States v Hobbs (4th Circuit)
Hobbs showed up at victims house, broke through window and had a gun and threatened to kill victim and her family as well as law-enforcement if she told them about the incident. While there, he stole her TV and left. Victim then called the police.
Details concerning Hobbs, a felon, armed with a weapon, history of violence, has been convicted of attempted murder before.
Due to the exigency of the issue, police escorted victim, and her family to police station, and then the police pinged the phone of Hobbs. They also used his call logs because the ping had a 5000 m radius. Call logs helped to narrow down where he was in that radius by the people he was calling who lived in that area.
The court found that the use of the ping and the call logs to locate Hobbs was justifiable due to his prior violent history, his threats to law-enforcement and threats to victim and her family.
Police eventually located Hobbs, who then fled from the police and crashed his vehicle into another one. Police found a loaded handgun near Hobbs, who is a prior felon. Hobbs was charged with possession of firearm by felon.
As long as police do not use this exigency as a tool for convenience, and they find that is absolutely necessary to locate the suspect before he commits a violent crime, then they are good.
US versus Mongold (10th Circuit
Officers entered home after the door was opened in response to a knock. The officers smelled marijuana. They forced their way in to prevent the destruction of evidence. The court found the entry was unlawful. Before an officer can, without a warrant enter a home to prevent the destruction of evidence. The following criteria must be met:
The entry must be based on probable cause
There must be a serious crime
The destruction of evidence is likely
The court determined that lacking probable cause of distribution or trafficking of marijuana, the odor only indicates simple possession, which, in Oklahoma, where the case originated is the misdemeanor offense. Therefore, the serious crime requirement was not met.
