CA6: Domestic violence call with potentially disturbed person inside justified warrantless entry

Officers responding to a domestic disturbance call were told by the victim outside that the person inside was belligerent and potentially violent and clearly disturbed. The entry into the home to arrest was reasonable, balancing the sanctity of the home and the duty to prevent violence. Vangel v. Szopko, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21523 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2016):

Still, she has not shown the Officers’ determination that exigent circumstances justified entry—if a mistake—was an objectively unreasonable mistake under clearly established law. Like the officers in Lawrence, the Officers here responded to a 911 call about a domestic dispute and found a victim that appeared to have been attacked. Domestic dispute calls are dangerous, in part, because emotions run high. And the Officers had reports of violent behavior that raised red flags about Fatima’s current mental and emotional state. Cf. Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244, 254-55 (6th Cir. 2003) (finding plaintiff’s belligerency relevant to exigency calculation); United States v. Arch, 7 F.3d 1300, 1304 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding “irrational, agitated, and bizarre” behavior contributed to a finding of exigent circumstances). The Officers did not need to accept James’s assurance that he did not “think” or “believe” his mother would be violent with them. Given what they heard about Fatima’s behavior, that she reportedly had a gun in her closet, and that she could retreat into the house, they acted quickly to prevent her from potentially gaining access to her gun. That she was the only one in the home lessened the risk of danger. But only to a point—Fatima could obviously shoot a gun through the storm door at James or the Officers.

This case implicates an area entitled to the strongest Fourth Amendment protection: the home. But it also implicates a compelling law-enforcement interest: the prevention of violence. Even if the Officers erred in balancing these interests, we cannot say that their error was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law.