Cases Finding Exigency
Category > Cases Finding Exigency
Officer's activation of the pager's display mechanism constituted a search but the possibility of losing evidence justified the warrantless search.While the defendant was being booked on charges of possession of cocaine for sale, his pager audibly signalled on at least 20 occasions that it had received messages. Following each signal, the booking officer pushed a button on the pager which caused the caller's telephone number to be displayed on the screen. The officer's activation of the pager's display mechanism constituted a search within the meaning of the state and federal constitution. However, the very real possibility that the evidence might be lost if not timely retrieved created an exigent circumstance necessitating the officer's immediate action. Given this exigency, the officer was justified in immediately retrieving the numbers without first obtaining a search warrant.id: 11104
Updated 3/6/2024Exigent circumstances supported the warrantless seizure of defendant’s dashboard camera.Defendant was convicted of reckless driving. Exigent circumstances supported the police act in seizing the dashboard camera from defendant’s car and keeping it for three days while securing a warrant to search the camera. Immediate action was necessary to prevent, among other things, the destruction of relevant evidence.id: 26507
Updated 2/23/2024Cell phone ping was justified by exigent circumstances following un unprovoked stabbing near a preschool and shopping center.Defendant argued the warrantless search of his car was illegal because it followed a police request that the mobile service provider “ping” his phone to provide location data. The court didn’t reach the issue of whether the real-time ping of defendant’s cell phone was a search since the search under the Fourth Amendment was justified by exigent circumstances following the recent unprovoked stabbing near the preschool.id: 26927
Updated 2/3/2024Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw from the unconscious defendant following the accident. Defendant, who had four drunk driving convictions, was involved in a serious car crash that rendered him unconscious. While he was unconscious, the police took a warrantless sample of his blood. Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless blood draw.id: 27743
Exigent circumstances justified a look through a garage window where animal control officers went to secure a horse that had escaped and heard a whining dog in the garage. Defendants were convicted of animal cruelty. A thin horse had escaped from their property and animal control officers responded and secured the horse. The house smelled unhealthy and the officers heard a dog whining from inside the garage. Standing in the driveway they looked through a broken glass in the garage door to see if the whining dog was in distress. Exigent circumstances justified the look inside the garage. Whether or not exigent circumstances also permitted the police to walk into the backyard, that search was justified by a warrant that allowed police to search for evidence of dogfighting.id: 25352
Warrantless blood draw was justified by exigent circumstances after Missouri v. McNeely due to the defendant’s combative behavior and the fact that he prevented the officers from performing field sobriety tests. Defendant argued mid-trial in his drunk driving case that the results of his blood tests should have been suppressed because of the warrantless blood draw. However, the court found exigent circumstances existed that supported the warrantless blood draw as the defendant was combative and prevented the officer from conducting field sobriety tests. The officers also knew the restraints on the defendant were uncomfortable and couldn’t be removed until he was booked in the jail (after the blood draw).id: 23933
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 finds that warrantless entry to stop fight was reasonable.Police officers responding to a report of a loud party at 3:00 a.m. saw two juveniles drinking beer in the yard of the house. They also heard crashing noises and people yelling. Looking into the kitchen, the officers saw an altercation between four adults and a juvenile. While the officers were watching, the juvenile punched one of the adults, drawing blood. The Supreme Court held that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that the injured adult may need help and that the fight in the kitchen was just beginning. For that reason, the Court held, the officers properly entered the house without a warrant.id: 21421
Supreme Court says that police may make warrantless entry to check for injured occupant.Responding to a 3:00 a.m. call about a loud party, police officers arrived at the house in question, heard shouting inside, and went into the backyard. Through a screen door, the officers saw a fight in the kitchen between four adults and a juvenile. While the officers watched, the juvenile punched one of the adults. The officers announced their presence and entered the house. The State courts suppressed the evidence the officers found while in the house. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that officers may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. The officers’ subjective reason for entering the home is irrelevant.id: 21420
A missing person’s report justified the warrantless entry into the house.Exigent circumstances justified the entry into the house where the police responded to a missing person’s call after being told a woman had not been heard from after a fight with her boyfriend. The entry was necessary to determine whether the woman and her son were injured inside the house. Moreover, the evidence in plain view included an open window on a cold night, a chlorine smell, a spotless bathroom in an otherwise messy apartment, provided probable cause to search the defendant’s car which was parked in front of the apartment.id: 21123
Exigent circumstances justified the police entry into a storage area to search for a missing person who defendant had previously threatened to lock in that area.Exigent circumstances justified the officers’ entry into the three storage rooms where they had information that a person had been missing for a few weeks, defendant had previously threatened to lock this person in the storage area and defendant had the keys to that area. id: 21064
Officer’s limited search through a side window of the house was justified by the reasonable possibility that children may have been in danger. Police officers may enter a home to render emergency aid when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside may be seriously injured. Police may also conduct a search of a home that is less intrusive than an entry when they have an objectively reasonable basis to suspect someone might be seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury. In the present case, the officer conducted a limited search by looking through a side window from an area not accessible to the public. However, the limited search was proportional to the nature of the exigency where the officers saw an unattended child in the street, no one answered the knocks on the door of the house, and the officers were concerned about other children.id: 20294
The officer’s observation of the gun by looking over a six-foot fence did not constitute a search and his entry into the yard to retrieve the gun was justified by exigent circumstances.The officer investigating a domestic disturbance, got no response at the front door of the house, and went to the side gate attempting to contact the defendant. From there, the officer standing on his toes and using a flashlight, looked over the six-foot wooden fence and saw a gun next to the sliding glass door. The officer’s observation from over the fence did not constitute a search since he did not violate the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Moreover, his subsequent entry into the yard to retrieve the revolver was justified by exigent circumstances, especially given the officer’s knowledge that a seven year-old child lived in the residence.id: 20291
Officers were justified in entering a neighbor's apartment after a recent brutal attack of an elderly woman next door.Defendant argued that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless entry of his apartment because the emergency took place in a neighboring apartment. However, there was evidence of a recent brutal attack next door and the officers entered defendant's apartment purely for the benevolent purpose of looking for more victims. In this case the warrantless search was justified.id: 11137
Exigent circumstances justified the officer's warrantless entry into the hotel room where a young boy and a hotel worker had tried to awaken the boy's mother but could not.A four year-old boy wandered into the lobby of a hotel looking for help since he could not awaken his mother. A hotel employee went to the room, but could not wake the boy's mother. Thereafter, a police officer repeatedly knocked on the door, announcing his presence, but no one answered. After waiting 30 seconds, he swiped the key card, opened the door, repeated the announcement and entered the room. The warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.id: 20068
Warrantless search of residence with door open and "shambles inside" was justified as an exigent circumstance or as a "community caretaking function."Officers received a police dispatch that the door of the residence had been open all day, and "its all a shambles inside." The warrantless search of the residence was justified either under the exception for exigent circumstances, or because the police were exercising a "community caretaking function."id: 15638
Officer acted reasonably in entering motel room, where he knocked on the door while investigating a Vehicle Code violation, and as the partially-closed door swung open he saw defendant reaching under the bed.Officers in a motel parking lot observed a car with a suspicious looking registration tab. They were told the owners of the car were in a certain room. Officers, after knocking, asked the male to walk out to the car with them. He changed his story four times regarding the owner of the car, although he ultimately stated it belonged to his girlfriend back in the room. The officer returned to the room where the door was partially open. As he knocked on the door, it opened further. He then saw the female reaching under the bed. At that point he stepped into the room. He then asked her if there were any drugs in the room and whether he could search it. The officer's actions in entering the room were justified by exigent circumstances since the defendant may have been reaching for a weapon under the bed. His limited intrusion did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, his brief questions were proper and the consent to search was not tainted by the brief inquiries.id: 15640
Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry of house where loud music had been playing for 24 hours, the newspapers and mail had piled up for days and neighbors were concerned for the safety of the normally quiet residents.Music coming from defendant's house had been playing for 24 hours. It was so loud, the neighbors could not bear it. Neighbors considered it unusual for the residents, and at least one neighbor was concerned for the safety of the residents. Mail and newspapers had piled up for several days. All reasonable efforts to contact the neighbors failed. Under these circumstances, the officers were confronted with an exigency and it was reasonable for the officers to enter to determine whether the residents were well or had met with foul play. After entering the house, the officers were further justified in opening the closet door.id: 14923
Officer was not required to forego a legal warrantless search and wait and see if the bindles would pass through defendant's system naturally.Defendant argued there were no exigent circumstances which justified the search of his mouth because the police had no reasonable cause to believe the bindles would not pass through defendant's digestive tract without being destroyed, and therefore, the police should have obtained a warrant or waited until the packages passed. However, the fact the bindles turned out to be sealed instead of just twisted closed did not diminish the reasonableness of the officer's belief at the time the arrest was being made. Therefore, the officer was not required to forego a legal warrantless search and wait to see if the bindles would pass naturally.id: 11130
Opening the body bag after entering the residence was not improper where there existed the possibility that the victim was still alive.Defendant argued that even if entry into the residence was justified by an emergency, cutting open the plastic in which the victim's body was wrapped constituted an illegal opening of a closed container which was not justified by any emergency. However, because there existed the possibility that the victim was still alive, the officer's decision to investigate further was appropriate.id: 11131
Seizure of desk pending the issuance of a warrant was justified under exigent circumstances where obtaining a telephonic warrant was impracticable and guarding the desk may have put the officers at risk.Defendant challenged the exigencies under which the officers removed the desk from his property pending the issuance of a second search warrant. The trial court found credible the testimony that a lengthy call over the cellular phone such as that required for a telephonic search warrant was impracticable. Defendant was free to return to the property later in the evening so if the desk was left in the residence officers guarding the desk would have faced an unknown number of possible assailants in a remote location where reinforcements would have been difficult to dispatch. These exigencies warranted seizure of the desk. Defendant also argued the delay in obtaining the subsequent warrant for the desk violated the Fourth Amendment. However, the two-day delay was justifiable where the desk was seized late in the day, the warrant application could not be completed the next day due to press of business and it was obtained expeditiously the following day.id: 11132
Warrantless entry of a hotel room by police in response to a "911" call was justified by exigent circumstances.Where a police officer responds to a call for emergency help after an accidental stabbing, the officer may, without a warrant, lawfully enter private premises along with those providing medical aid for the limited purpose of ensuring the safety of those present.id: 11133
After defendant acknowledged that he pointed a deadly weapon at his neighbor- though he stated it was unloaded -exigent circumstances justified the officer's entry into the home to secure the weapon.Officers were investigating a complaint regarding a man threatening his neighbor with a weapon. The defendant acknowledged that the gun was in his house and the officer stated he wanted to secure the weapon before proceeding further. He then accompanied defendant through the house to retrieve the weapon and saw contraband in plain view. The officers clearly had the right to fear for their safety and that of the general public given defendant's intoxicated state, his prior threat of murder, and the proximity of a potentially deadly weapon.id: 11120
Exigent circumstances justified a warrantless arrest of defendant at home where officers were informed he had just killed two men and he was armed.Detective knew that two men had just been shot to death. Information from eyewitnesses provided the police with strong probable cause to believe defendant was the killer, that he was armed, and that he was at the apartment he shared with his mother. Police also knew he was a Peruvian national who had recently come to California from New York and that he was aware that he could be identified, which increased the likelihood that he would flee. These circumstances were more than sufficiently urgent to justify the warrantless arrest of defendant at home.id: 11121
Exigent circumstances justified entry into hotel room where officers saw defendant counting tin foil bindles and there was a danger the contraband would be destroyed if the officers waited.Officers were walking down the corridor of a hotel and walked passed a room with an open door. They noticed a man was sitting on the bed counting tin foil bindles. Believing the bindles contained heroin the officers entered the room, seized the bindles and arrested defendant. Defendant argued there was no exigent circumstance to justify an entry and one officer should have maintained the hotel room under surveillance while the other officer obtained a warrant. However, exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and it was reasonable to conclude there was an imminent danger the contraband would be destroyed if the officers did not act immediately to arrest defendant and seize the evidence.id: 11122
Exigent circumstances justified entry into the house where an intoxicated man admitted brandishing his shotgun at a neighbor.Defendant was intoxicated, had earlier threatened to murder his neighbor and told the police that he had a shotgun in the house. Under the circumstances, the officers, while standing outside of his house, properly requested that defendant retrieve the gun and accompanied him when he went to do so.id: 11123
Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry of the house where it appeared the woman who answered the door was the victim of domestic violence.Officers responded to an anonymous report of domestic violence. Defendant argued exigent circumstances did not justify the officer's warrantless entry into the home because the woman's perceived injuries (noticed when she opened the door) were relatively slight and she said she was not hurt. However, evidence supported the trial court's finding of exigent circumstances given the woman's suspicious conduct, the officer's belief that she was under the threat of continued violence, and the fact that she lied about being alone. Viewed objectively, these circumstances justified the officer's actions to ensure her safety. The failure to procure a warrant was not unconstitutional.id: 11124
Exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry after defendant stole stereo speakers that contained a tracking device and were covered with powder visible in U.V. light.Defendant stole stereo speakers from a vehicle that was placed on the street as bait by police. The speakers contained a tracking device and were covered with powder visible in ultraviolet light. The officers followed the tracking device signal to a residence, entered the residence without a warrant, and arrested defendant. The warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances as the occupants of the house could have disassembled or destroyed the speakers during the time it would have taken to obtain a warrant to search the residence.id: 11125
Expectation that drug dealer would destroy contraband if his buyer did not return with the money justified securing the premises from within while awaiting the search warrant.Police were aware that Marshall had obtained a large quantity of cocaine from his man in the house. Marshall had been arrested and would not be returning to the house with the $36,000.00 purchase price. Time was of the essence because a drug dealer expects prompt payment and obtaining a telephonic search warrant could have taken two hours. Under these particular facts, exigent circumstances justified entry to secure the dwelling from within while awaiting the search warrant.id: 11126
Hot pursuit justified the warrantless entry into the house and arrest after the officer witnessed minor traffic violations.Officer witnessed the minor drive through two stop signs. Hen then activated his lights and siren and told the minor to stop. The minor continued and then stopped the car and ran into a house. Officer followed the minor into the house and arrested him for driving without a license. The exigency of hot pursuit justified the warrantless arrest because there was an immediate and continuous pursuit of the minor for the traffic violations which the officer witnessed.id: 11127
Officer reasonably believed a child had been brutally beaten by defendant and was in defendant's residence and exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.Officer saw that an infant had been brutally injured. A percipient witness told the officer a man named Bob or Lee had inflicted the injuries. Another witness directed the officer to defendant's residence. She told the officer the defendant was intoxicated and that she though defendant had a three year old boy with him. The officer found a trail of broken glass and blood on the front porch and could see someone inside trying to avoid detection. The officer's decision to kick in the door was premised on the reasonably perceived need to protect the child inside.id: 11128
Officer safety justified reentry of the dwelling to retrieve the gun 15 minutes after the defendant escaped.The initial entry of the house in hot pursuit of defendant was justified. About 15 minutes after defendant's escape, the area was secured and at that point, the pursuing officer radioed a deputy to reenter the house and secure the weapon. Reentry of the house to retrieve the gun was justified for officer safety. Moreover, there was no inexcusable delay between the time the gun was initially perceived and the time it was retrieved, nor was there evidence of any intent on the part of the deputies to abandon the gun. Finally, it was legally insignificant that the gun was retrieved by a deputy who had no first hand knowledge of the gun.id: 11129
A reasonable but mistaken belief that the subject of a felony arrest warrant was inside the motel room justified the entry.The officers had reasonable cause to believe the subject of the felony arrest warrant was inside the motel room at the time of their entry. The motel manager telephoned the police and stated she thought she had just observed him enter the room (after being shown a photograph by the police a few days earlier). When the officers approached the room someone closed the curtains and said It's the fucking pigs. When a nervous and uncooperative man opened the door, the officers observed a loaded handgun within his reach. Moreover, exigent circumstances also justified the officers' entry based on the presence of the gun and the officers' reasonable belief that the subject of their felony arrest warrant was secreted inside.id: 11083
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.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245