Exigent circumstances justified SWAT Team entry despite silence from inside

Exigent circumstances justified a SWAT Team’s entry into a FEMA trailer that they had surrounded. Apparently there was some risk of the offender’s escape. State v. Berry, 989 So. 2d 120 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008):

Exigent circumstances may arise from the need to prevent the offender’s escape, minimize the possibility of a violent confrontation that could cause injury to the officers and the public, and preserve evidence from destruction or concealment. Brisban, 00-3437 at 5, 809 So.2d at 927-28.

On review, we find that the entry was justified by exigent circumstances. Although the officers were prepared to and did wait hours after the other family members exited the trailer, the circumstances were exigent from the moment of their arrival. The officers were trying to avoid a violent confrontation that could have injured them and others at the scene. Deputy Williams testified regarding the danger they faced in walking into a trailer in this situation, since they believed Berry was armed. The officers were simply forming strategies and waiting for an opportunity to detain Berry in the safest manner possible. Viewing the scene through the open door, Deputy Williams reacted to Berry’s movement in the kitchen cabinet immediately, hurriedly entering the trailer to detain him. The record also supports the conclusion that the officers feared for Berry’s escape, as he was hiding from them, refusing to come out.

We further find that probable cause was also present to justify the intrusion into the trailer. The police had information that Berry was seen earlier in possession of a firearm and had, in fact, discharged a firearm, causing damage to Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong’s trailer. …

Comment: Escape by tunneling out or teletransportation? Once somebody creates situation that the SWAT Team has to surround one’s house, how long are the police supposed to wait to bring the situation to a conclusion to wait him out? Two hours, six, all day, two days? The Fourth Amendment does not put a time limit on it.

While defendant was ordered during a traffic stop to empty his pockets, his statement he “willingly” did so converted it to implied consent. Normally, failure to object is not consent, but here it would be. State v. Harrison, 2008 Iowa App. LEXIS 397 (June 25, 2008).*

Parolee and probation searches cannot be arbitrary and have to be based on need. Need here was justified by a belief defendant had drugs and then a flushing sound when defendant knew the officers were outside. State v. Young, 988 So. 2d 759 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.