E.D.La.: Exigency had dissipated by the time this stop occurred, and it’s suppressed

Officers heard a threat to kill defendant and they went looking for him to warn him. But, the court finds no sense of urgency, and they stopped defendant’s car, claiming the emergency exception. There was an emergency if they acted accordingly, but they didn’t. The stop, when it finally occurred, was not really based on an emergency, and it is suppressed. United States v. Toussaint, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96847 (E.D.La. July 24, 2015):

For the foregoing reasons, after assessing the evidence and credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, the Court finds that the officers’ initial decision to act on the perceived threat heard over the wiretap was reasonable. However, the Court finds that the response to the perceived threat and the decision to stop Toussaint were not reasonable. The Government has not demonstrated that the exigency was existing or still imminent at the time Toussaint was stopped. The officers did not arrive at the scene or conduct their patrol of the neighborhood with any sense of urgency. Both the officers and Toussaint were leaving the area where the threat originated when he was stopped, and there is no evidence that anyone other than the officers were following Toussaint. More than 45 minutes had passed since the threat was made. Instead of stopping Toussaint to warn him of the threat, the officers elected to conduct a routine traffic stop. Had the officers only stopped Toussaint to warn him of a credible threat, Toussaint should have been free to leave, and the officers would not have had any reason to chase Toussaint when he decided to flee. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Government has not met its burden of showing that exigent circumstances still existed at the time of the stop sufficient to justify the stop and subsequent search and seizure.