Cases Finding No Exigency
Category > Cases Finding No Exigency
Updated 3/5/2024Emergency aid and exigent circumstance exceptions to the warrant requirement did not apply where police entered a house after seeing a running car in a driveway where no one answered the door, and the good faith exception did not apply.Officers observed an unoccupied running car in a residential driveway at night and what appeared to be a dark residence with a porch light on and the front door locked. No one responded to the door bell or knocks and the officers could not see or hear anything inside. They then moved to a side door and entered. While police may have believed there was a medical emergency, no facts reasonably supported that concern. Moreover, the facts did not establish an exigent circumstance allowing the warrantless entry. The good-faith exception did apply because the community caretaking exception relied on here (People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464) was a plurality decision that did not constitute binding authority.id: 26693
Updated 3/4/2024The warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional where defendant did not lose consciousness until 90 minutes after the accident.In Mitchell v. Wisconsin (2019) 139 S.W. 2525, the court found that when a driver is unconscious and can’t be given a breath test, the exigent circumstances rule almost always permits a blood test without a warrant. However, the warrantless blood draw in the present case was unconstitutional where the unconsciousness or unresponsiveness did not occur until 90 minutes after the incident, and the police made no attempt to get a warrant. The good faith exception did not apply and the judgment was reversed.id: 28182
Updated 2/24/2024Warrantless search of a cabinet in backyard shed by a fire department captain who smelled smoke was not justified by exigent circumstances.The fire department responded to a report of a fire at defendant’s home. The fire captain saw no fire in the house but smelled smoke. He entered the backyard and saw no fire but there was still an odor of smoke. He opened the door of a closed shed “to make sure everything was clear.” He then opened a metal cabinet in the shed for no particular reason. The search of the cabinet was not justified by exigent circumstances as any urgency had dissipated and the police could have obtained a warrant to search the property if they believed it was appropriate. The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence found in the cabinet.id: 27314
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
The smell of burning marijuana coming from a hotel room did not constitute exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry of the room. The warrantless entry and search of defendant’s hotel room were not justified by exigent circumstances where the police smelled burning marijuana. Simple possession of marijuana is a nonjailable offense subject to a $100 fine. Police here had no information that defendants possessed more that 08.5 grams of marijuana or that any other crime was taking place. A belief that evidence of a nonjailable offense will imminently be destroyed is not a sufficient basis to justify a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances.id: 22705
Exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless entry of the apartment where there was no showing the police reasonably believed that a compatriot threatened the destruction of evidence.An informant told police that Dallas was selling marijuana out of the trunk of his car at a very fast rate. There was no evidence the marijuana, some of which was believed to be in the apartment, would have been depleted by the time a warrant could be issued. The police did not even know that marijuana was in the apartment or that Dallas had accomplices in the apartment who would suspect his apprehension and destroy the marijuana. Exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless entry of the apartment.id: 11136
Warrantless entry into the hotel room is not justified by exigent circumstances where the exigency was created by the officer who burst into the room in plain clothes with his gun drawn.A hotel maid had noticed baggies containing a powdery substance in defendant's room. Two plain clothes police officers accompanied a maid to the room and announced housekeeping. Defendant opened the door slightly and then closed it. He then swung the door open at which point one plain clothes officer aimed his drawn weapon at defendant. Defendant apparently believed he was being robbed and backed into his room. He was followed by the officer who then identified himself and saw narcotics paraphernalia in plain view. The warrantless entry could not be justified based on exigent circumstances because any exigency was created by the officer. When defendant responded fearfully and by retreating, this reaction to an apparent robbery attempt, objectively viewed, cannot justify a warrantless entry.id: 11138
Entry into defendant's bedroom was improper where it was based upon general complaint regarding narcotics activity and officers knew people were in the room.Officers had been contacted about possible drug activity at defendant's apartment. They were told by a person who let them into the apartment that he was not authorized to consent to a search of defendant's bedroom. Officers entered after they saw smoke coming from the room and saw two individuals leave. There were no exigent circumstances justifying the officers' entry into defendant's room.id: 11135
13 hour search of the house following a one-minute protective sweep of the crime scene exceeded the scope of reasonableness of the search.After a one-minute sweep of the crime scene for additional suspects or victims the apartment was cordoned off with yellow evidence tape and further investigations occurred for an additional 13 hours, until at least 11 p.m. without the benefit of a search warrant. The People argued the officers' conduct was justified by exigent circumstances, and whether, because the apartment had been cordoned off, there was, in essence, no entry or,at most it was an actual continuation of the first entry. However, the 13 hour search of the house exceeded the scope of the reasonableness of the search justified due to exigent circumstances. Moreover, counsel's failure to bring a suppression motion constituted ineffective assistance.id: 11134
Updated 2/26/2024Warrantless entry into defendant’s apartment based on shots fired outside was not justified by the emergency aid or exigent circumstances doctrine.If a man lives in a high crime neighborhood and someone discharges a weapon outside his home, the police may not break down the door and enter his apartment when he refuses to invite them in to investigate. The police here had no reasonable cause to believe that someone in the apartment was in need of emergency aid, or that some other exception to the warrant requirement applied.id: 26574
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 did not justify entry of the house where the only crime the police knew of was possession of a small amount of marijuana.Defendant was convicted of possessing marijuana. However, the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. Under Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740, a finding of exigent circumstances is categorically precluded when the only crime the police are aware of when they enter a residence to arrest the occupant and/or seize contraband is possession of no more than 28.5 grams of marijuana.id: 20043
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