CA5: No factual findings of exigency for automobile exception applies; remanded

Defendant was followed to his house from a bank robbery, and his car was searched in the driveway. However, “[i]n this case, the district court did not make factual findings about whether exigent circumstances were present sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the automobile exception. Indeed, the Government argues for the first time on appeal that the automobile exception applies. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.” United States v. Beene, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4331 (5th Cir. March 8, 2016) (2-1).

“Three Albuquerque Police Department officers shot Stephan Cordova after he raised a gun in their direction. Cordova survived and was charged with assault, although the charges were later dismissed on speedy trial grounds. Cordova then brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming primarily (1) that the charges of assault were brought in bad faith; (2) that the police unreasonably prevented interaction with his family when he was in a hospital recovering from his wounds; and (3) the police used excessive force by firing on him without an adequate warning. The district court allowed only the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims to go to trial, where a jury returned a verdict for the officers.” Affirmed. Cordova v. City of Albuquerque, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4309 (10th Cir. March 8, 2016).*