E.D.Mich.: Hearing on wire CI OD’ing inside was exigency for police entry

Officers sent in a wired CI to do a heroin deal, and it was apparent listening to the wire that the CI overdosed inside. The emergency aid exception applied to the police entry. United States v. Belser, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160028 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 18, 2016):

B. The Emergency Aid Doctrine Applies

Belser argues that the officers’ warrantless entry into his home was unconstitutional and exigent circumstances did not justify the entry. He says that officers did not enter his home to prevent immediate destruction of evidence; rather, they only entered to determine if the CI disregarded their commands to not use the purchased drugs and if he had an adverse reaction from doing so.

This appears to be a concession by Belser that Defendants entered his home to see if the CI had overdosed on drugs.

Imminent destruction of evidence is not the only exigent circumstance that is an exception to the warrant requirement. The Sixth Circuit identified four “exigent circumstances” that give rise to the warrant requirement exception: (1) hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; (2) imminent destruction of evidence; (3) the need to prevent a suspect’s escape; or, (4) a risk of danger to the police or others. Williams, 354 F.3d 497, 504.

This risk of danger exception is known as the Emergency Aid Doctrine. See Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323, 329-30 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47 (2009) (“[O]fficers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.”).

The Government argues that the police entered Belser’s home because of a suspected drug overdose and to render emergency aid to the CI. The Government relies on Fisher to argue that officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing that a person in the house was in need of immediate aid. Id. 558 U.S. 45, 47.

In Fisher, officers responded to a report that a man was “going crazy” in his home. Id. On arrival officers stayed outside and found: (1) extensive damage to the property; (2) a truck in the driveway with blood on the hood and on clothes inside; (3) the man throwing things and screaming in the home; and, (4) the back door of the home locked and a couch in front of it blocking entry. Id.

Through a window, officers could see that the man had a cut on his hand, so they asked him if he needed medical attention. Id. He responded “no,” and told the officers to get a warrant. Id. An officer pushed his way through the front door and partially opened it. Id. Through the window of the open door, the officer saw the man pointing a gun at him and the officer withdrew. Id.

The state charged the man with assault with a dangerous weapon. The trial court held that the officer violated the man’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from a warrantless entry. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers’ actions were reasonable under the Emergency Aid Doctrine: “officers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, life-threatening injury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 47, 49.

Here, the officers heard Belser yelling, “breath don’t do this to me” and what sounded like him slapping someone to wake up. Officers could also hear someone breathing deeply and gasping for air. Since it appeared that only Belser and the CI were in the home, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to conclude that the CI was in the throes of an emergency.

The Court finds that the officers’ entry into Belser’s home was lawful under the Emergency Aid Doctrine.

C. The Police Did Not Create The Exigent Circumstances
…