CA11: No exigency present on a domestic call to justify warrantless entry into home

No reasonable officer could conclude on these facts that there was exigency for a warrantless entry. There was no evidence that actual violence was occurring or threatened. Therefore, qualified immunity was denied. Walters v. Freeman, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13540 (11th Cir. July 16, 2014):

Freeman also contends that Florida’s “robust” domestic abuse investigation-and-reporting statute essentially required him to do whatever was necessary to visually verify and confirm Walters’s well-being after being dispatched to a domestic-disturbance call. See Fla. Stat. § 741.29.

This argument is unavailing. Although Florida’s statute imposes mandatory investigation obligations on law enforcement officials, see Fla. Stat. § 741.29(1), (2), it does so with respect to incidents of “domestic violence.” Id. The Florida statute’s definition of “domestic violence” encompasses a wide-array of physical conduct. See Fla. Stat. § 741.28. Freeman, however, did not encounter any evidence of physical violence, and the Florida statute did not impose any obligations on Freeman that justified a warrantless entry into Walters’s home under the facts of this case.