Warrantless Exceptions: Exigent Circumstances Flashcards
Mincey v. Arizona (Exigent General)
police who are already on/responding to a murder scene can reasonably search for victims/survivors, respond to ongoing danger, and things along those lines. But an actual search (here, a 4-day long search) of the crime scene requires a warrant.
* Warrantless search must end when the exigency ends.
* The scope of the exigency dictates the scope of the permissible warrantless search.
* Factors include potential loss of evidence, danger to others/police, or the inability to obtain a warrant b/c of the other two considerations.
Kentucky v. King (Police Created Extingency)
Police set up a drug buy. They moved in after the buy but could not see which apt the suspect entered. Chose the one with weed smell. Knocked and announced presence. Heard people moving around inside and were worried that evidence was about to be destroyed.
Court ruled that knocked and announce did not create the exigency, it is a reasonable police practice. The police were acting reasonably.
police can’t rely on the need to prevent destruction of evidence if that exigency was created/manufactured by police. The test is whether the police either violated 4A or threatened to do so prior to the point of entry.
The police here did not violate or threaten to violate when they thought the destruction of evidence was going to happen so it was reasonable of them to enter and thus the search was allowed.
when in doubt, look to reasonableness
Brigham City v. Stuart (Emergency situation Doctrine)
Loud party, officers arrive, heard shouting inside. saw altercation through screen door of adults trying to restrain a minor but he broke free and hit someone. Officer saw blood. entered and announced presence, arrested people.
Police had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone might need help/violence was ongoing. OFFICERS MAY ENTER HOME W/OUT WARRANT TO RENDER EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO AN INJURED OCCUPANT OR TO PROTECT AN OCCUPANT FROM IMMINENT INJURY
Here they saw punch, announced presence but no one heard, stepped into kitchen to announce again is equivalent to knock on door = no 4a violation. Objectively reasonable basis.
SUBJECTIVENESS IS IRRELEVANT!!!! if officers had other motives, doesn’t matter as long as they had a reasonable basis for entering.
Analysis on Exam for Exigency
ANALYSIS ON EXAM FOR EXIGENCY:
1. Is there an exigency? (Mincy)
a. Potential destruction/dissipation of evidence?
i. Risking loss of “evanescent” evidence is case by case
b. Fleeing allows warrantless arrest in home
i. Warden v Hayden (1967) : fleeing suspect; held valid warrantless search when 8am armed robber entered a store and ran and cops arrived at their house, searched it, found 2 guns and clothes BC 4a does not require cops to delay in the course of an investigation if doing so would endanger their lives/other’s lives.
ii. US v Santana (1978) – hot pursuit; upheld warrantless entry into a home in hot pursuit of a suspect who committed felony.
iii. BUT SEE: Lange v. CA (2021) (pursuit of fleeing misdemeanant assessed on case-by-case basis for exigent circumstances; risk of escape counts as EC, but flight itself DOES NOT.
c. Emergency aid? Danger of violence to police or others?
i. Danger does not have to be life-threatening. Brigham
ii. Objective test; officer motivation NOT considered
2. Did the police engage in or threaten to engage in unconstitutional activity (King)
a. If police created the exigency unlawfully, then the exigency exception does not apply
3. If not, did govt activity go beyond scope of exigency? (Mincey)
Canaglia v. Strom (2021) (Community Caretaking case)
domestic dispute, husband acting threateningly w/ gun, wife asks police to conduct wellness check next day after she leaves - police send him to hospital willingly on condition that they do not take his guns - once he is gone, go into his home and take firearms - Was the warrantless entry into the home constitutional b/c of the “community caretaking” exception to 4th amend searches/seizures? → NO.
HOME is MUCH DIFFERENT than a vehicle. - this case is not subject to Cady v. Dombrowski - in which officer’s removal of firearms w/out a warrant from an abandoned car on a public highway b/c of the community caretaking actions of police - police often act in non-investigatory ways to protect the community
- Court says neither the holding nor logic of Cady justifies a warrantless search and seizure of the home → SEARCHES OF VEHICLES AND HOMES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY DIFFERENT - what is reasonable for vehicles is different from what is reasonable for homes
Community Caretaking Wrap Up
Cady v. Dombrowski permits warrantless searches of a vehicle for a firearm during a non-investigative police response to disabled vehicles or traffic accidents.
Caniglia v. Strom did not extend Cady to the home, noting that the home has a different constitutional status than vehicles on public highways.
Brigham City permits warrantless entry into home to render emergency aid, prevent violence, and restore order.
Officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing help is needed and actions inside must be reasonable.
