CA11: “Service call” about a bullet hole didn’t justify an emergency entry

Emergency justification for entry into defendant’s apartment fails. Conviction reversed, search and statements suppressed. United States v. Timmann, 741 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2013):

The situation the officers confronted in the instant case bears none of these indicia of an urgent, ongoing emergency. The officers here did not receive an emergency report regarding an ongoing disturbance, but rather a service call regarding what appeared to be a bullet hole, which circumstances known to the officers indicated had been made at least 39 hours prior to when the officers made entry. When Officer Martin first arrived at the apartment building, she did not encounter a tumultuous scene, nor were the officers met with chaos when they returned to the building the next day. The officers observed no violent behavior, nor did they see or hear evidence that a fight had taken place or that anyone had been injured, other than finding a single bullet hole. Nor did the officers have any information that would lead them to suspect that Timmann might be suicidal, or that he might be home (in fact, the absence of his work vehicle indicated that he was likely not at home). Considering the totality of the circumstances, it was not reasonable for the officers to believe that someone inside Timmann’s apartment was in danger and in need of immediate aid. Therefore, we find that the District Court erred in holding that the emergency aid exception justified the officers’ warrantless entry into Timmann’s apartment.

B.

The District Court held that the officers’ subsequent warrantless entry into Timmann’s locked bedroom was justified either as a protective sweep of the premises—to search for individuals who might do them harm—or by the same exigent concern for potential victims that justified their initial entry into the apartment. Neither rationale is persuasive.