IN: Bloody dog running in open door of house was exigent circumstance

Four bloody dogs were in defendant’s yard, and one ran through an open sliding door when the police arrived. The dogs were aggressive toward each other, but the officers couldn’t determine whether the blood was from dogs or people, so it was reasonable to enter the house because this presented an exigency. Carpenter v. State, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 70 (February 20, 2014).

The exigency requirement of the automobile exception is based on mobility alone, and defendant’s car was mobile. His backpack was searched based on probable cause and the automobile exception, and the officer had clear reason to believe that evidence would be in there. United States v. Wagner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185291 (N.D. Ga. December 23, 2013).*

This Franks challenge, believe it or not, was based on the argument that the officer’s failure to note a pair of shoes in the car ultimately searched with a warrant made it based on a false statement. It wasn’t remotely material to the probable cause determination. United States v. Minor, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185290 (N.D. Ga. December 3, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.