OH6: A 911 call of gunshots in an apartment and blood seen on a man’s shirt was exigency

A 911 call of gunshots in an apartment and blood seen on a man’s shirt was exigency. “In this case, the facts establish that Toledo police officers responded to a 911 call wherein the caller said that someone was yelling inside Apartment No. 5 and was ‘busting off caps.’ Also, the caller indicated that there was a black male with blood on his shirt. Upon arrival at 1561 Brooke Park, Apartment No. 5, the officers observed fresh blood directly outside the door of the apartment. These facts effectively define an exigent circumstance, thereby enabling the responding officers to gain access to the apartment without violating the proscriptions of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Williams, 2016-Ohio-439, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 377 (6th Dist. Feb. 5, 2016)

Defendant was sitting in a car outside a convenience store waiting for a friend when the officers approached him. They had no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, but it was consensual when officers talked with him. The officers didn’t have the same story about what they smelled, fresh or burnt marijuana, but defendant admitted he had marijuana, and that was enough for cause to search the car. United States v. Warren, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175839 (W.D.Ky. Oct. 21, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12735 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 3, 2016).*