CA9: 911 domestic abuse call from woman didn’t justify entry when she answered door and questions

The police entry into the house on a 911 call from a woman about a domestic abuse call wasn’t justified when she answered the door and their questions and wasn’t hurt and didn’t seem scared. United States v. Harris, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4565 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016):

Harris’ wife answered the door and was within the sight of the police. She was unharmed and displayed no signs of being in distress. There were no specific or articulable facts demonstrating that she was in imminent danger. See id. The only material fact of which the police officers were aware at the time she answered the door was that 911 had been called about a domestic violence incident. This fact alone is insufficient to support a finding of exigent or emergency circumstances on the basis that Harris’ wife may have been in danger at that moment or could potentially be in danger in the immediate future. Brooks, 367 F.3d at 1136; see Struckman, 603 F.3d at 743-44. The police’s initial entry into the apartment was consequently in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The scope of the police’s second search of the kitchen after they entered the apartment also violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not “reasonable to meet the need” of protecting the officers or others from immediate harm. Snipe, 515 F.3d at 952. The government contends that the second sweep of the kitchen was reasonably conducted to protect the officers and Harris’ wife from harm. The government argues that the officer who searched the kitchen reasonably believed [*5] that Harris may have placed a gun there, because upon entering the apartment, the officers heard a loud thud coming from the kitchen and saw Harris crouching by stove, and because Harris refused to answer the officers’ questions.