OH12: A 911 butt call linked to defendant’s address justifies a police response to the house to at least check

A 911 butt call linked to defendant’s address justifies a police response to the house to at least check on the call. It’s the same as a 911 hangup call which also justifies a response. State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-67, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 57 (12th Dist. Jan. 11, 2016):

[*P13] In light of the foregoing, and based on the facts and circumstances here, we conclude, as did the trial court before us, that exigent circumstances existed that placed a duty on Officer Dearing and Patrolman Conley to fully investigate the alleged accidental 9-1-1 “pocket call” to determine whether an emergency actually existed at the Joneses’ property. This included briefly entering the Joneses’ home and speaking with the Joneses’ three children to ensure that they were not in danger or in need of emergency assistance. In so holding, we note that the exigency of the situation did not vanish simply because Jones and his wife told dispatch and the responding officers that they were not in need of emergency assistance, nor did the exigency cease once they requested the officers to obtain a search warrant. The right to privacy, while fundamental and personal in nature, is not absolute and must yield when required by public necessity. State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 525-526, 2000 Ohio 428, 728 N.E.2d 342 (2000). Jones’ claim otherwise is simply incorrect.

[*P14] Moreover, although it should generally go without saying, “logic requires the conclusion that if police have a duty to enter a home to ascertain if emergency assistance is needed, that duty would be meaningless if someone is privileged to resist that entry.” State v. May, 4th Dist. Highland No. 06CA10, 2007-Ohio-1428, ¶ 14. This is particularly true here considering the officers’ testimony at the suppression hearing that indicated Jones was breathing heavily, sweating, irate, and agitated upon their arrival, with Jones’ wife also being described as belligerent, very aggressive and extremely agitated. According to Officer Dearing, the Joneses’ “odd” reaction caused him to believe something was truly amiss since it was “just not normal behavior[.]” Patrolman Conley further testified that the Joneses’ demeanor and aggressiveness towards them was not indicative of the normal accidental 9-1-1 call. Therefore, because the officers were justified in their actions by investigating the matter fully to determine whether an emergency actually existed, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to deny Jones’ motion to suppress. Accordingly, Jones’ first assignment of error is overruled.